South Africa Case Law

Twenty-Third Century Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v SAP Africa Region (Pty) Ltd (172/2023)

Twenty-Third Century Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v SAP Africa Region (Pty) Ltd (172/2023) [2025] ZASCA 51; [2025] 3 All SA 62 (SCA) (30 April 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

172/2023

Judges

Mocumie, Kgoele, Kathree-Setiloane, Windell, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exclusion of damages and time bar clauses in the agreement are secondary obligations that survive termination, including termination by repudiation, as expressly provided by the survival clause. The Court distinguished between primary obligations, which end upon acceptance of repudiation, and secondary obligations, which regulate post-termination consequences and endure as per the contract. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation does not preclude SAP from relying on these clauses, as the parties agreed they would survive any termination. The appe…

Source excerpt

• Contract Repudiation
• Survival Clause
• Limitation Of Liability
• Time Bar
• Approbation And Reprobation

MV 'MSC Susanna': Owners and Underwriters of the MV 'MSC Susanna' and Another v Transnet (SOC) Ltd and Another (1039/2020)

MV 'MSC Susanna': Owners and Underwriters of the MV 'MSC Susanna' and Another v Transnet (SOC) Ltd and Another (1039/2020) [2021] ZASCA 135; [2022] 1 All SA 126 (SCA); 2022 (2) SA 85 (SCA) (6 October 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1039/2020

Judges

Navsa, Wallis, Schippers, Mbatha, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 261(1)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act confers a right to limit liability for damages arising from the operation of a vessel, including claims by defence force vessels. The exclusion in section 3(6) applies to ships, not to owners, and does not preclude owners of merchant ships from invoking limitation provisions against claims by defence force vessels. The court found that the language of section 261 is clear and comprehensive, encompassing all types of property without qualification. The court rejected the Ministry's argument that the Act's purp…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Of Liability
• Merchant Shipping Act
• Joinder Of Parties
• Interpretation Of Statutes

MV "MSC Susanna" and Another v National Ports Authority of South Africa, a division of Transnet (SOC) Ltd and Another (A4/19)

MV "MSC Susanna" and Another v National Ports Authority of South Africa, a division of Transnet (SOC) Ltd and Another (A4/19) [2020] ZAKZPHC 51 (10 September 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

A4/19

Judge

Mngadi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie cause of action for declaratory relief against the second respondent. Section 3(6) of the Merchant Shipping Act expressly excludes ships belonging to the defence forces from the application of the Act, including the limitation regime in s 261. The purpose of the limitation provisions is to promote merchant shipping, not to extend protection to naval vessels, which are excluded by legislative intent. The court held that interpreting 'property' in s 261 to include naval ships would undermine the clear exclusion in s 3(6) and…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Limitation Of Liability
• Merchant Shipping Act
• Admiralty Jurisdiction
• Interpretation Of Statutes

WK Construction (Pty) Limited v Rowland and Others (8186/2016)

WK Construction (Pty) Limited v Rowland and Others (8186/2016) [2020] ZAKZDHC 8 (4 March 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

8186/2016

Judge

Phillips AJ

The court found that by 22 August 2013, the plaintiff was aware of the fraud perpetrated by Mr Maartens, the damages suffered, and the fact that the defendants had issued unqualified audit reports during the relevant periods. The plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt, and prescription began to run from that date. The argument that the claim against the auditors was contingent upon recovery from Mr Maartens was rejected; the claims were separate and distinct, and the plaintiff's right of action against the auditors accrued when t…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Contractual Time Bar
• Auditing Profession Act
• Breach Of Contract
• Damages
• Limitation Of Liability

MS "Bonanza" Schiffahrtgesellschaft mbH & Co, KG and Another v Durban Coal Terminal Company (Pty) Ltd t.a Bulk Connexions and Another (A50/2017)

MS "Bonanza" Schiffahrtgesellschaft mbH & Co, KG and Another v Durban Coal Terminal Company (Pty) Ltd t.a Bulk Connexions and Another (A50/2017) [2018] ZAKZDHC 6 (29 March 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A50/2017

Judge

Mngadi

The court refused a shipowners’ request for a declaratory order extending South African limitation of liability to foreign proceedings.

• Limitation Of Liability
• Forum Non Conveniens
• Declaratory Relief
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Merchant Shipping Act
• Multiplicity Of Actions

Malesela Taihan Electric Cable (Pty) Ltd v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (17193/2014)

Malesela Taihan Electric Cable (Pty) Ltd v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (17193/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 341 (18 April 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

17193/2014

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The High Court held Fidelity liable for a full reimbursement after its guards facilitated copper theft, and struck down the liability cap to that extent.

• Specific Performance
• Contractual Liability
• Limitation Of Liability
• Gross Negligence
• Security Services Regulation
• Security-services-liability

Really Useful Investments NO 219 (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others (8102/2014)

Really Useful Investments NO 219 (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others (8102/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 35 (27 March 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8102/2014

Judge

K M Savage

The court held that section 34 of the ECA creates a statutory compensation right not limited by liability clauses, so the exception and plea failed.

• Environment Conservation Act
• Statutory Compensation
• Limitation Of Liability
• Constitutional Right To Environment
• Expropriation
• Pleading Exception

Road Accident Fund v Sweatman (162/2014)

Road Accident Fund v Sweatman (162/2014) [2015] ZASCA 22; [2015] 2 All SA 679 (SCA); 2015 (6) SA 186 (SCA) (20 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

162/2014

Judges

Lewis, Maya, Zondi, Dambuza, Mayat

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the statutory cap on damages for loss of income or support under the Road Accident Fund Act is to be applied as the amount set out in the last notice issued prior to the date of the accident, without annual inflation adjustments. The conventional actuarial method, which calculates the present value of the actual loss including all contingencies and mortality, remains the correct approach. The Fund's alternative method, which inflates the cap for each year and applies mortality rates only after determining the annual loss, is not supported by the wording o…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Limitation Of Liability
• Loss Of Income
• Actuarial Calculation
• Statutory Interpretation

Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular v MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd (936/2013)

Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular v MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd (936/2013) [2014] ZASCA 181 (24 November 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

936/2013

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Bosielo, Saldulker, Meyer

The appeal succeeded because the limitation clause in the dealer agreement was ambiguous and could not be decided on exception without evidence.

• Contract Interpretation
• Limitation Of Liability
• Exception Procedure
• Contract-interpretation
• Limitation-of-liability
• Exception-procedure

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v X (196/13)

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v X (196/13) [2014] ZASCA 129; 2015 (1) SA 25 (SCA); 2015 (1) SACR 187 (SCA); [2014] 4 All SA 586 (SCA) (23 September 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

196/13

Judges

Lewis, Tshiqi, Wallis, Zondi, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the prosecutor owed a legal duty to the public, specifically to the respondent and her minor daughter, to take all reasonable steps to prevent the release of a dangerous accused by placing all relevant information before the magistrate during the bail application. The prosecutor's failure to do so, both at the initial hearing and in subsequent proceedings, constituted negligent conduct falling short of the standard expected of a reasonable prosecutor. The court found that, had the prosecutor discharged his duty, the magistrate would not have released the…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Bail Application
• Emotional Shock
• Limitation Of Liability
• State Liability