South Africa Case Law

Lloyd v Richards and Another (4892/2022)

Lloyd v Richards and Another (4892/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 41 (13 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4892/2022

Judge

Van Zyl

The court found that the sale of members’ interest agreement did not expressly or by necessary implication create joint and several liability. Clause 4.4 stipulated that each respondent purchased 50% of the members’ interest, and references to 'the Purchasers' and their joint conduct did not override this. The debt was divisible, and the presumption of joint liability applied. The applicant failed to show an intention to create joint and several liability. Regarding costs, the court held that the application was premature as the corporation was not debt-free at the effective date, and payment…

Source excerpt

• Sale Of Members Interest
• Joint Liability
• Contract Interpretation
• Costs Award
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction

Philasande v Minister of Police and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2388/2017)

Philasande v Minister of Police and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2388/2017) [2024] ZAECMHC 72 (1 October 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2388/2017

Judge

Cengani-Mbakaza

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a judgment on unlawful arrest and detention, finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Condonation For Late Filing
• Unlawful Arrest
• Legal Causation
• Novus Actus Interveniens
• Joint Liability
• Remand Orders

October and 15 Others v Theunissen Technical Services and Another (C155/2019)

October and 15 Others v Theunissen Technical Services and Another (C155/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 40; (2022) 43 ILJ 2573 (LC) (27 July 2022)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C155/2019

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that the applicants were permanent employees of the respondents, not contractors, based on the evidence of continuous employment, regular payment, and lack of written contracts. The respondents' version that the applicants were casual workers was rejected as unsupported by documentary evidence and contradicted by admissions under cross-examination. The termination of employment on 14 January 2019, when the respondents stated there was no work and could not guarantee future remuneration, constituted a dismissal under section 186 of the LRA. The respondents failed to plead or pr…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Close Corporations Act
• Compensation For Dismissal
• Joint Liability

Rooplal N.O. v Khangela and Another (2020/11111)

Rooplal N.O. v Khangela and Another (2020/11111) [2021] ZAGPJHC 516 (28 April 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/11111

Judge

R M Robinson

The High Court enforced a vehicle finance agreement against the first respondent, but postponed mortgage relief pending proper section 129 notice to the second respondent.

• National Credit Act Compliance
• Section 129 Notice
• Enforcement Of Credit Agreements
• Joint Liability
• Service Of Process
• National-credit-act

Cilliers v Agri-Com Co-Operative Limited and Another (2126/2019)

Cilliers v Agri-Com Co-Operative Limited and Another (2126/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 264 (29 December 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2126/2019

Judge

Opperman

High Court trial over an alleged oral contract for harvesting and baling Teff. The plaintiff failed to prove Agri-Com undertook to pay baling costs, and her claim was dismissed.

• Oral Contract
• Burden Of Proof
• Joint Liability
• Contractual Certainty
• Costs Award
• Oral-contract

Munters (Pty) Ltd v Serote and Another (4004/2014)

Munters (Pty) Ltd v Serote and Another (4004/2014) [2018] ZAGPJHC 491 (26 March 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

4004/2014

Judge

Ncongwane

Employer proved employee fraud and theft that diverted payments into the spouse’s home loan account; both defendants were held jointly liable.

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Theft By Employee
• Actio Legis Aquiliae
• Joint Liability
• Bare Denial Pleading
• Attorney And Client Costs

Firstrand Bank Limited v Malan and Another (33118/2010)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Malan and Another (33118/2010) [2014] ZAGPJHC 219 (28 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

33118/2010

Judge

S S Mphahlele

The High Court held the respondents’ liability under a loan agreement was joint, not joint and several, and postponed the matter for oral evidence on quantum.

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Joint Liability
• Certificate Of Balance
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Quantum Dispute
• Joint-liability

Rantho v Mankoe and Another (4402/07)

Rantho v Mankoe and Another (4402/07) [2012] ZAGPPHC 338 (14 December 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4402/07

Judge

Ranchod

The court held the second defendant jointly liable on a loan agreement and dismissed the first defendant’s counterclaim based on an alleged telephonic commission agreement.

• Loan Agreement
• Joint Liability
• Pleadings And Admissions
• Counterclaim
• Setoff
• Summary Judgment

Maharaj v Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd and Others (3510/2010)

Maharaj v Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd and Others (3510/2010) [2010] ZAKZDHC 32; [2011] 2 All SA 571 (KZD); 2011 (6) SA 17 (KZD) (16 August 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3510/2010

Judge

Dhaya Pillay

The court held that the applicant's consent was not required for Basant to enter into the broker's contract and incur the debt, as the contract related to earning remuneration. Under section 17(5) of the Matrimonial Property Act, the applicant is jointly liable for her share of the debt incurred during the marriage, as the debt was for income necessary for the joint household. Both the applicant's claim to the policy proceeds and the respondent's claim for commission are liquidated debts, and set-off is permissible as the debts are owed by and to the same persons in the same capacities, regar…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Set Off
• Cession
• Joint Liability
• Liquidated Debt
• Divorce Settlement

Madzunye and Another v Road Accident Fund (17/06)

Madzunye and Another v Road Accident Fund (17/06) [2006] ZASCA 151; 2007 (1) SA 165 (SCA) (20 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

017/2006

Judges

Brand JA, Maya JA, Combrinck AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a bakkie driver’s unsafe right turn, together with the Audi driver’s negligence, caused the collision and upheld costs against the Road Accident Fund.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Causal Negligence
• Joint Liability
• Personal Injury
• Costs Award
• Road-accident-fund-act