Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Limited (2023/028000)
Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Limited (2023/028000) [2025] ZAGPJHC 499 (27 May 2025)
The court found that ABSA was entitled to reject Exxaro's first demand, which was defective. However, the second demand was a separate act and required a distinct response. ABSA failed to reject the second demand within five days as required by the URDG, and thus was precluded from relying on any defects in that demand. The guarantee expired on 19 June 2020, and the second demand was made on that day, satisfying the requirement that the demand be received before expiry. The court rejected ABSA's argument that unconscionability was a valid defence, finding no unreasonable or excessive conduct…
Source excerpt
- Demand Guarantee
- Uniform Rules For Demand Guarantees
- Contractual Interpretation
- Issue Estoppel
- Unconscionability