Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Saaiman N.O and Another v Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd (KP177/2018) [2023] ZANWHC 87 (23 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed a trust’s claim that Suidwes Landbou had to pay life-insurance premiums, holding the written agreement placed that duty on the trust.
Yacht Hardware CC t/a Harken South Africa v Zenith International (Proprietary) Limited (A139/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 251 (2 December 2022)
The court held that the interpretation of clause 9.2 must be based on its express wording, which clearly indemnifies the plaintiff against claims brought by employees due to termination, as the defendant did not take over the employees. The court a quo erred by admitting and considering extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intentions, which is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The claims of Kesse and Barrish, who lost their employment due to the sale and the defendant's election not to take over their contracts, fall squarely within the ambit of clause 9.2. The defendant is the…
Source excerpt
Famous Brands Management (Pty) Ltd v Fourie and Others (76167/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 629 (25 August 2022)
High Court exception upheld where an indemnity claim failed to plead a sufficient nexus between the pleaded loss and the defendants’ liability.
Skycastle Securities (PTY) Ltd and Others v TMM Holdings (PTY) Ltd and Another : In re: TMM Holdings (PTY) Ltd and Another v Skycastle Securities (PTY) Ltd and Others (30494/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 390 (8 June 2022)
The High Court dismissed exceptions to particulars of claim, finding the indemnity clause and causation objections did not show the claims were bad in law.
Nghwazi TT Investments (Pty) Ltd v Lowveld Show Society (2862/2018) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 44 (27 September 2021)
High Court held that the seller could not rely on a risk and indemnity clause to avoid refunding auctioneer’s commission after the sale was cancelled.
Emordi and Another v FBS Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (14666/2016) [2021] ZAWCHC 139; 2021 (2) SACR 451 (WCC) (27 July 2021)
The court found, on the probabilities, that the first plaintiff did not steal the disputed items from Shoprite but had purchased them at Parow Mark prior to entering Shoprite. The defendants failed to provide the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to explain her possession of the items or to retrieve proof of purchase, and their investigation was superficial and inadequate. The detention by Shoprite and FBS from 17h30 to 19h30 was unlawful, as the suspicion of theft was not properly assessed and did not meet the standard of reasonableness required by law. The subsequent arrest and overnight d…
Source excerpt
Cooper v Shamwari Game Reserve (2565/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 52 (13 April 2021)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove causal negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff was aware of the pool's presence, had seen it earlier in daylight, and others in her party managed to avoid it. Her failure to keep a proper lookout was the sole cause of her injury. Even if causal negligence had been established, the indemnity signed by the plaintiff was clear, unambiguous, and not contrary to public policy or the Consumer Protection Act. The indemnity did not exclude liability for gross negligence or intentional conduct, and the plaintiff signed it voluntarily wi…
Source excerpt
MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd v Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular (1077/2019) [2021] ZASCA 7 (15 January 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed MTN’s appeal, holding that its cancellation was an unjustified repudiation and that Belet could claim damages.
Gerhard Potgieter Maintenance Cleaning Services (Witbank) CC t/a Mr Clean and Another v Gordon and Another (A220/2016, A146/2016, 32665/2010) [2019] ZAGPPHC 548 (25 October 2019)
High Court appeal on a slip-and-fall claim held Mr Clean must indemnify Shoprite and that Gordon’s claim against Mr Clean had prescribed.
Gora v Kingswood College and Others (5517/2015) [2019] ZAECGHC 24; 2019 (4) SA 162 (ECG) (15 March 2019)
The court found that the absence of a teacher in the classroom did not, in itself, constitute negligence, as the environment did not pose an inherent risk to the learners and the pupils involved were mature enough to be expected to behave responsibly. The evidence showed that incidents of violence in unsupervised settings at Kingswood College were extremely rare, and the school had reasonable procedures and codes of conduct in place. Even if negligence were established, the indemnity clause in the enrolment contract excluded liability for ordinary negligence, and the plaintiff failed to prove…
Source excerpt
Explore more
