South Africa Case Law

Saboath General Traders (Pty) Ltd t/a Sausage Saloon and Another v Mthatha Mall (Pty) Ltd (CCT 323/22)

Saboath General Traders (Pty) Ltd t/a Sausage Saloon and Another v Mthatha Mall (Pty) Ltd (CCT 323/22) [2023] ZACC 43; 2024 (5) BCLR 633 (CC) (12 December 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 323/22

Judges

Zondo, Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Rogers, Theron, Van Zyl

The Constitutional Court held that clause 31 of the lease agreement did not oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. On a proper interpretation, the clause merely records the parties' consent to the jurisdiction of the High Court, without expressly or unambiguously excluding the Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction. The Court found that the wording of clause 31 does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court, and the context of the lease and related suretyship agreement supports this interpretation. The principle of pacta sunt servanda was not violated, as the lower courts did n…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Ouster Of Magistrates Court
• Contractual Interpretation
• Pacta Sunt Servanda

BBH Bryanston (Pty) Ltd v Mputsu Investments Holdings (8609/2022)

BBH Bryanston (Pty) Ltd v Mputsu Investments Holdings (8609/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 165 (27 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8609/2022

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court confirmed a provisional winding-up order against Mputsu Investments Holdings after finding non-payment of lease arrears and dismissing preliminary objections.

• Company Winding Up
• Commercial Insolvency
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Abuse Of Process
• Authority Of Deponent
• Company-winding-up

MEC, Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, Eastern Cape Province v Pretorius and Another (CA 09/2022)

MEC, Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, Eastern Cape Province v Pretorius and Another (CA 09/2022) [2022] ZAECMHC 17 (26 July 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA 09/2022

Judges

Laing, Stretch, Ah-Shene

The High Court upheld an eviction application, finding the lease terminated, PIE complied with, and the respondent’s claimed improvement lien unproven.

• Eviction Under Pie
• Termination Of Lease
• Improvement Lien
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Locus Standi
• Municipal Report Requirement

First National Bank t/a Wesbank v Prins; Nedbank Limited v de Kock (4028/2020; 15702/2020)

First National Bank t/a Wesbank v Prins; Nedbank Limited v de Kock (4028/2020; 15702/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 42 (26 February 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4028/2020; 15702/2020

Judge

Bozalek

The High Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over claims that fall within the monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly ousted by legislation. Jurisdiction clauses in the underlying agreements merely permit, but do not compel, the plaintiff to institute proceedings in the Magistrates Court. The Registrar erred in refusing to grant default judgment on the basis that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The relevant practice directive does not apply to applications for default judgment brought before its effective date and, in any event, m…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Default Judgment
• Magistrates Court Act
• Superior Courts Act
• Practice Directives

Firstrand Bank Limited v Naude and Others (839/2019)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Naude and Others (839/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 29 (6 November 2020)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

839/2019

Judge

Mashile

The court found that the applicant provided sufficient evidence that payments were made by the principal debtor into its account after February 2016, which constituted an acknowledgment of indebtedness and interrupted prescription as contemplated by Section 14 of the Prescription Act. The respondents failed to demonstrate that these payments were not made by the principal debtor, and a mere denial was insufficient in light of the documentary evidence. The claim had therefore not prescribed by the time the application was launched. The court further held that there were no real disputes of fac…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship Liability
• Prescription Act
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Motion Proceedings
• Liquidation
• Acknowledgment Of Debt

National Credit Regulator v Triple Advanced Investments 40 (Pty) Ltd (35431/2015/140(1))

National Credit Regulator v Triple Advanced Investments 40 (Pty) Ltd (35431/2015/140(1)) [2017] ZANCT 89 (10 July 2017)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

35431/2015/140(1)

Settlement agreement made an order of the National Consumer Tribunal in a credit-regulator dispute over unlawful consent clauses and jurisdiction terms.

• National Credit Act
• Unlawful Credit Agreement Terms
• Emolument Attachment Orders
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• National-credit-act
• Unlawful-credit-agreement-terms

State Bank of India and Another v Denel SOC Limited and Others (947/13)

State Bank of India and Another v Denel SOC Limited and Others (947/13) [2014] ZASCA 212; [2015] 2 All SA 152 (SCA) (3 December 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

947/13

Judges

Brand, Bosielo, Theron, Mbha, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the demands made by the Indian banks under seven of the eight counter guarantees did not comply with the terms of those guarantees, as they were premised on non-fulfilment of contractual obligations rather than the specific events required by the guarantees. Therefore, Absa was not obliged to pay under those counter guarantees, and Denel was entitled to interdictory relief restraining payment pending finalisation of proceedings in India. However, with respect to counter guarantee no 821-02-0002584G, the guarantee expressly provided for exclusive jurisdict…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantees
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Interdictory Relief
• Banker Client Relationship

Ngqula v South African Airways (Pty) Ltd (775/11)

Ngqula v South African Airways (Pty) Ltd (775/11) [2012] ZASCA 120; 2013 (1) SA 155 (SCA) (19 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

701/11

Judges

Heher, Ponnan, Wallis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an order authorising the removal of proceedings under section 3 of the Interim Rationalisation of High Courts Act is a simple interlocutory order and not appealable. The order does not dispose of any portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings and does not have final effect on the rights of the parties. The appellant's argument that removal prejudiced his prescription defence was rejected, as prescription must be tested when pleaded, not at the removal stage. The court emphasised that the purpose of section 3 is procedural, enabling transfer to…

Source excerpt

• Interim Rationalisation Of High Courts Act
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Removal Of Proceedings
• Prescription Defence