South Africa Case Law

Fourways Gardens Homeowners Association v Duggan and Others (2023/067528)

Fourways Gardens Homeowners Association v Duggan and Others (2023/067528) [2025] ZAGPJHC 746 (25 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/067528

Judge

M V Noko

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the higher threshold required for leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act. The arguments advanced in support of the application were substantially the same as those previously considered and rejected in the main judgment. The applicant did not demonstrate that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there were compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal Threshold
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Without Prejudice Correspondence
• Jurisdiction Of Csos Ombudsman
• Retrospective Resolution Effect

B.B.Y. v A.A.B.Y. (2022/17297)

B.B.Y. v A.A.B.Y. (2022/17297) [2025] ZAGPJHC 747 (25 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/17297

Judge

E Raubenheimer

The High Court found a party in contempt for failing to comply with divorce and maintenance orders, rejected a Get-based conditionality defence, and suspended imprisonment on compliance.

• Maintenance Enforcement
• Contempt Of Court
• Settlement Agreement
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Variation Of Contact
• Reduction Of Maintenance

Global Connect Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v South African Securitisation Programme and Others (3198/2022)

Global Connect Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v South African Securitisation Programme and Others (3198/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 168 (12 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3198/2022

Judges

Loubser, Chesiwe, Ntanga

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish any bona fide defence or triable issue to resist summary judgment. The court found that the deponent to the summary judgment affidavit, as litigation manager with direct access to relevant records, satisfied the requirements of rule 32. The alleged illegibility of the rental agreement did not prevent the appellants from pleading fully, and thus did not constitute a valid defence. The purported cancellation of the agreement was not effected in accordance with the contractual terms and was invalid. The defence of force majeure…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32 Uniform Rules
• Force Majeure
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Contract Termination
• Guarantee Liability

Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd and Another v Thavalerie Travel CC and Another (2022/11927)

Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd and Another v Thavalerie Travel CC and Another (2022/11927) [2025] ZAGPJHC 573 (10 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/11927

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The court found that the defendants failed to raise any genuine triable issue to resist summary judgment. Jurisdiction was established as the agreements were accepted in Johannesburg. The second defendant is liable under the guarantees, which were unlimited and contained certificate clauses and renunciation of benefits. The impossibility of performance defence was rejected as it was not absolute or objective and contradicted by the timeline of deregistration and lockdown. The National Credit Act does not apply because ownership did not pass to the lessee and no interest or deferred payment wa…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Guarantee Liability
• Certificate Of Indebtedness
• Jurisdiction
• National Credit Act
• Impossibility Of Performance

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Willis and Another (31542/2019)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Willis and Another (31542/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1263 (2 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

31542/2019

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The court found that the first defendant failed to raise a bona fide triable issue. His defence of impossibility of performance due to Covid-19 was unsupported by evidence or financial records and amounted to a subjective impossibility, which does not excuse contractual obligations under South African law. The alleged non-delivery of the section 129(1) notice was refuted by documentary evidence showing proper service at the defendant's chosen address. The first defendant admitted arrears and failed to provide a legal basis for resisting summary judgment. The requirements for summary judgment…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• National Credit Act
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Rule 46a Executability
• Service Of Process

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Rebosis Property Fund Limited (2021/31253)

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Rebosis Property Fund Limited (2021/31253) [2024] ZAGPJHC 969 (25 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/31253

Judge

Van der Merwe

The High Court granted rescission of a default judgment in a lease dispute, finding the applicant had a bona fide defence with prospects of success.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Lease Dispute
• Wilful Default
• Bona Fide Defence
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Rescission-of-judgment

Savannah Country Estate Homeowners Association v Zero Plus Trading 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others (773/2022)

Savannah Country Estate Homeowners Association v Zero Plus Trading 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others (773/2022) [2024] ZASCA 40 (4 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

773/2022

Judges

Ponnan, Mabindla-Boqwana, Goosen, Tolmay, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Savannah failed to establish any additional factor or criterion required for special leave to appeal under section 16(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success, nor did it show any special circumstances warranting the grant of special leave. The sale of Erf 445 and subsequent development into sectional title units rendered the relief sought impossible, as the property had been transferred to third parties and the body corporate. Savannah failed to amend its particulars of claim or join necessary pa…

Source excerpt

• Special Leave To Appeal
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Sectional Titles Act
• Companies Act Section 228
• Transfer Of Property
• Body Corporate Membership

Quipsell Trading 1007 (Pty) Ltd ta Elephant Coast Convinience Centre v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2024/013800)

Quipsell Trading 1007 (Pty) Ltd ta Elephant Coast Convinience Centre v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2024/013800) [2024] ZAGPJHC 281 (12 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/013800

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The High Court ordered Eskom to restore electricity to the applicant’s premises within 48 hours, rejecting urgency, impossibility, and non-joinder objections.

• Electricity Regulation Act
• Mandamus
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Specific Performance
• Jurisdiction Agreement
• Electricity-supply

Lilfam Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Mike and Ian Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Another (2021/3377)

Lilfam Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Mike and Ian Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Another (2021/3377) [2024] ZAGPJHC 108 (8 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/3377

Judge

G B Hardy

The court found that the Defendants admitted the arrear rental and failed to raise any triable issue in their plea or affidavits. The Covid-19 hard lockdown could only excuse performance for April 2020, but the Plaintiff had already credited the First Defendant's account for that period. The lease agreement contained a clause excluding the Plaintiff's liability for restricted access, thereby excluding the defence of impossibility of performance. For the remainder of the Covid-19 restrictions, the Defendants were not absolved from their obligations, as the lockdown regulations were progressive…

Source excerpt

• Lease Agreement
• Summary Judgment
• Impossibility Of Performance
• Suretyship Liability
• Covid19 Contractual Relief

Public Servants Association v South African Revenue Service Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service and Others (34583/2021)

Public Servants Association v South African Revenue Service Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service and Others (34583/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1914 (22 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34583/2021

Judge

E M Kubushi

The Court found that the Wage Agreement does not fall within the ambit of section 66(3) of the PFMA, as it is not a transaction similar to a credit or security agreement. Section 53(4) of the PFMA does not require multi-year wage agreements to be contingent on future budgets, and the necessary safeguards are provided by the PFMA and SARS Act. SARS failed to prove objective impossibility of performance, as it received sufficient funds and chose to allocate them elsewhere. The economic downturn and COVID-19 did not constitute vis major or casus fortuitous, and SARS' financial constraints were f…

Source excerpt

• Collective Bargaining
• Multi Year Wage Agreement
• Public Finance Management Act
• Specific Performance
• Impossibility Of Performance