South Africa Case Law

Lafrica Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sightful Coal (1750/2022)

Lafrica Mining (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sightful Coal (1750/2022) [2025] ZAMPMHC 26 (15 May 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1750/2022

Judge

KF Phahlamohlaka

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the respondent is indebted to them. The evidence showed that the agreement and payments were made between the respondent and Inzuzu Trading and Investment Coal, not the applicants. The respondent's opposition was supported by bona fide and reasonable grounds, and the existence of the alleged debt was genuinely disputed. The admissions made by Mokholo, a former director, were properly withdrawn, and the facts presented by the respondent were accepted. The court applied the Plascon-Evans rule and concluded that it would not be just an…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Just And Equitable Ground
• Bona Fide Dispute Of Indebtedness
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Authority To Represent
• Costs Order

Haralambos Prokas N O and Others v Zoviflo (Pty) Ltd (61/2024)

Haralambos Prokas N O and Others v Zoviflo (Pty) Ltd (61/2024) [2025] ZASCA 18 (13 March 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

61/2024

Judges

Meyer, Matojane, Koen, Bloem, Modiba

The SCA held that a nominee shareholders agreement could not stand alone where it was inextricably linked to an uncompleted joint venture agreement.

• Joint Venture Agreement
• Contract Formation
• Nominee Shareholders Agreement
• Offer And Acceptance
• Enforceability Of Contracts
• Revocation Of Offer

Wessels N.O and Another v Selosesha Development (Pty) Ltd and Others (3492/2024)

Wessels N.O and Another v Selosesha Development (Pty) Ltd and Others (3492/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 53 (27 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3492/2024

Judge

Hefer AJ

The High Court dismissed a Rule 23 exception, holding the particulars of claim were sufficiently pleaded and not prejudicially vague.

• Exception Procedure
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Directors Liability
• Pre Incoporation Contracts
• Shareholder Rights
• Civil-procedure

Fore St Holding (Pty) Ltd and Another v Meyer NO and Others (2023/01338)

Fore St Holding (Pty) Ltd and Another v Meyer NO and Others (2023/01338) [2025] ZAGPJHC 71 (5 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/01338

Judge

Windell

High Court review of an arbitration award dismissed. The court held the arbitrator acted within the reference, upheld the award, and ordered punitive costs.

• Arbitration Act Review
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Specific Performance
• Supervening Impossibility
• Tacit Terms
• Punitive Costs

QCK Lezmin 4791 CC and Others v Sikhova Importers CC and Another (CA & R 65/2022)

QCK Lezmin 4791 CC and Others v Sikhova Importers CC and Another (CA & R 65/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 17 (23 February 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 65/2022

Judges

Phatshoane, Nxumalo, Olivier

The appeal succeeded because the respondents failed to establish unlawful deprivation of possession necessary for spoliatory relief. The evidence did not support the claim that QCK and Lore changed the locks or physically prevented access; the respondents' own affidavits introduced new facts and assumptions, undermining their case. The correspondence between the parties did not mention spoliation contemporaneously, and the delay in launching the application was inordinate. The cancellation of the Surface Use Agreement constituted the exercise of contractual rights, not spoliation. Dulostyle w…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Surface Use Agreement
• Prospecting Rights
• Application To Strike Out

Neo Thando Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another (008808/2022)

Neo Thando Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another (008808/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2022 (1 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

008808/2022

Judge

Francis-Subbiah

The court found that the deadlock between directors and shareholders in NTEM prevents the company from defending the action proceedings, risking default judgment and financial prejudice to both NTEM and Neo Thando. Neo Thando, as majority shareholder and director, demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the outcome, satisfying the requirements for intervention. The court exercised its discretion under section 358 of the Companies Act, 1973 to stay the proceedings, finding it equitable given the pending liquidation appeal and the unresolved financial disputes. The intervention would…

Source excerpt

• Company Deadlock
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Locus Standi
• Shareholder Dispute
• Joint Venture Agreement

Kingston v Msimang and Others (13623/22)

Kingston v Msimang and Others (13623/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1948 (27 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13623/22

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the applicant, as co-owner, has the necessary locus standi to seek eviction of the first respondent and other occupiers. The first respondent, as executor, does not acquire ownership rights and is not entitled to occupy the property. The JVA governs the sale of the property after the death of one party, requiring sale by public auction since no agreement was reached for a private sale within the stipulated period. The enforcement of the JVA does not offend public policy or constitutional rights, as the family may retain the home by purchasing the applicant's share. No rea…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Co Ownership
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Public Auction
• Locus Standi

Salamousas v South Side Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Orexi Greek Street Food (2023-075201)

Salamousas v South Side Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Orexi Greek Street Food (2023-075201) [2023] ZAGPJHC 914 (15 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-075201

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to interdictory relief preventing interference with management and operation of the business, as material disputes of fact regarding the existence and terms of a joint venture agreement could not be resolved on the papers. The harm sought to be prevented had already transpired, rendering the relief moot. However, the applicant did establish a prima facie right to protection of the assets he contributed to the respondent's business, as the respondent did not dispute possession or use of those assets and had no entitleme…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Specific Performance
• Oral Contracts
• Striking Out Application

Park Village Auctioneers (PTY) Ltd v Forum Exporters International (PTY) Ltd (A5039/21)

Park Village Auctioneers (PTY) Ltd v Forum Exporters International (PTY) Ltd (A5039/21) [2022] ZAGPJHC 556 (26 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5039/21

Judges

Windell, Mudau, Molahlehi

The court upheld an appeal in an oral joint venture dispute, finding Forum proved the agreement but not the amount allegedly due, and granted absolution from the instance.

• Joint Venture Agreement
• Quantum Of Claim
• Absolution From Instance
• Oral Contract
• Burden Of Proof
• Oral-contract

Naka Diamond Mining (Pty) Limited v Johannes Frederick Klopper NO & Others (277/2021)

Naka Diamond Mining (Pty) Limited v Johannes Frederick Klopper NO & Others (277/2021) [2022] ZASCA 94 (17 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

277/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Gorven, Mothle, Mabindla-Boqwana, Savage

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that termination of the joint venture agreement ended all contractual obligations, and Clause 8.7 could not be used to recreate them.

• Joint Venture Agreement
• Contract Termination
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Business Rescue
• Declaratory Relief
• Joint-venture-agreement