South Africa Case Law

Sedumedi v Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (J502/2022)

Sedumedi v Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (J502/2022) [2025] ZALCJHB 142; (2025) 46 ILJ 2015 (LC) (4 April 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J502/2022

Judge

M Meyerowitz

The court found that the applicant's fixed-term contract did not grant the University the right to terminate on notice for operational reasons prior to its natural end date. The Appointment Letter did not clearly and unequivocally incorporate the Termination Policy as a contractual term, nor did the applicant assent to its contents. The Termination Policy itself did not purport to amend the written contract or introduce a termination-on-notice clause for fixed-term contracts. The University, as drafter, failed to speak plainly if such a right was intended. The applicant was entitled to damage…

Source excerpt

• Fixed Term Contract
• Premature Termination
• Contractual Interpretation
• Mitigation Of Loss
• Incorporation By Reference

Ceva Logistics South Africa (Pty) Ltd v MMS Mobile Cranes CC (20296/2020)

Ceva Logistics South Africa (Pty) Ltd v MMS Mobile Cranes CC (20296/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1129 (12 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20296/2020

Judge

Osborne AJ

High Court summary judgment granted for logistics charges after the court found the respondent had accepted the quoted costs and failed to raise a bona fide defence.

• Summary Judgment
• Incorporation By Reference
• Standard Terms And Conditions
• Caveat Subscriptor
• Contra Bonos Mores
• Duty Of Care

Motwell Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd v Van Rensburg and Another (56155/2021)

Motwell Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd v Van Rensburg and Another (56155/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 930 (21 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

56155/2021

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The court held that the suretyship clause, when read in the context of the entire agreement, sufficiently identified the company as the principal debtor. The reference to 'the hirer' in the suretyship clause was clarified by the 'Client Mandate' on page 1, which named the company and was initialled by the first respondent. The respondents' attempt to separate the 'Client Mandate' from the rest of the agreement was artificial and ignored the document's structure and context. Extrinsic evidence could be used to identify the principal debtor, but in this case, the written agreement itself was su…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• General Law Amendment Act
• Contractual Formalities
• Incorporation By Reference

Gerber v Stanlib Asset Management (Pty) Ltd (JA92/20)

Gerber v Stanlib Asset Management (Pty) Ltd (JA92/20) [2021] ZALAC 51; [2022] 3 BLLR 251 (LAC); (2022) 43 ILJ 1080 (LAC) (13 December 2021)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA92/20

Judges

Waglay, Davis, Kubushi

The court found that the appellant's employment contract validly incorporated the Disciplinary Code and Grievance Procedures, which included the compulsory private arbitration clause, by reference. The appellant was provided with the relevant documents and directed to acquaint himself with their contents. The clause had been in effect since 2002 and applied to all employees within the Liberty Group and its subsidiaries, including the respondent. The Labour Court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over claims B and D, as the disputes fell within the scope of the arbitration agree…

Source excerpt

• Compulsory Private Arbitration
• Incorporation By Reference
• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Pacta Sunt Servanda

Rlwa (Pty) Ltd v Mc Duling (56595/2019)

Rlwa (Pty) Ltd v Mc Duling (56595/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 422 (11 September 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56595/2019

Judge

JJC Swanepoel

The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to interdict a former sales representative from competing, finding the restraint unincorporated and unenforceable.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Unlawful Competition
• Confidential Information
• Incorporation By Reference
• Restraint-of-trade
• Unlawful-competition

Fidelity Corporate Services (Pty) Ltd v Roger David Property (Pty) Ltd (A3020/19)

Fidelity Corporate Services (Pty) Ltd v Roger David Property (Pty) Ltd (A3020/19) [2019] ZAGPJHC 294 (29 August 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3020/19

Judges

Opperman, H.E Mkhawane

The High Court upheld an appeal against summary judgment after finding the appellant had sufficiently incorporated its plea by reference and disclosed a triable defence.

• Summary Judgment
• Incorporation By Reference
• Contractual Interpretation
• Bona Fide Defence
• Summary-judgment
• Incorporation-by-reference

Masibuyisane Services (Pty) Ltd v Cliffside Trading 62 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nova Plant Services (1757/2017)

Masibuyisane Services (Pty) Ltd v Cliffside Trading 62 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nova Plant Services (1757/2017) [2019] ZAMPMHC 28 (18 June 2019)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1757/2017

Judge

HF Brauckmann

The High Court dismissed an exception against an amended plea, holding that the particulars of claim disclosed a cause of action and were not vague or embarrassing.

• Exception Procedure
• Incorporation By Reference
• Pleading Requirements
• Contractual Interpretation
• Exception-procedure
• Incorporation-by-reference

Incredible Sand (Pty) Ltd v Vos (2376/2018)

Incredible Sand (Pty) Ltd v Vos (2376/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 698 (28 September 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2376/2018

Judge

Van der Schyff

The court found that the suretyship agreement, although not expressly naming the principal debtor, sufficiently incorporated the acknowledgement of debt by reference. The acknowledgement of debt was signed on the same day and at the same meeting as the suretyship agreement, and it clearly identified Bucon Development and Construction (Pty) Ltd as the debtor. The court accepted that incorporation by reference is permissible and that the requirements of section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act were met. Consequently, the applicant established locus standi as a creditor of the respondent, who…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Sequestration
• Suretyship
• Incorporation By Reference
• General Law Amendment Act Compliance

Incredible Sand (Pty) Limited v Bucon Development and Construction (Pty) Limited and Another (90421/2016)

Incredible Sand (Pty) Limited v Bucon Development and Construction (Pty) Limited and Another (90421/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 430 (2 August 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

90421/2016

Judge

Kooverjie

The court considered whether a suretyship lacking the debtor’s name could be read with an acknowledged debt it referenced. It held the matter should proceed and refused provisional sentence.

• Suretyship Agreement
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Incorporation By Reference
• Extrinsic Evidence
• Section 6 General Law Amendment Act
• Suretyship-agreement

Engen Petroleum Limited v Webrref Trading No. 31 CC t/a Elm Street Service Station and Another (32424/13)

Engen Petroleum Limited v Webrref Trading No. 31 CC t/a Elm Street Service Station and Another (32424/13) [2017] ZAGPJHC 192 (3 July 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

32424/13

Judge

Spilg

The court found that the issues raised in Webref's counterapplication are factually and legally intertwined with the main application and cannot be conveniently separated for hearing. Webref's attempt to reserve the right to supplement its affidavit is impermissible; any supplementation requires a formal application for condonation, setting out the new matters and evidence. Incorporation by reference of previous affidavits and external court papers fails to define the issues and does not comply with procedural requirements, causing prejudice to Engen and uncertainty for the court. The documen…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Issues
• Condonation
• Incorporation By Reference
• Contractual Interpretation
• Rule 35 Discovery