South Africa Case Law

Capitalbox Green Energy Finance (Pty) Ltd v Baruk Petroleum (Pty) Ltd and Others (1734/2024)

Capitalbox Green Energy Finance (Pty) Ltd v Baruk Petroleum (Pty) Ltd and Others (1734/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 341 (22 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1734/2024

Judge

Van Rhyn

Summary judgment was granted only for return of listed equipment. The balance of the monetary claim was left for trial because bona fide defences and contractual uncertainty remained.

• Master Rental Agreement
• Summary Judgment
• Liquidated Damages
• Guarantee Agreement
• Contractual Interpretation
• Summary-judgment

South African Securitisation Programme RF Ltd v Initiative for Specialized Resources Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/045850)

South African Securitisation Programme RF Ltd v Initiative for Specialized Resources Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/045850) [2024] ZAGPJHC 545 (6 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/045850

Judge

N.S. Kruger

The third defendant failed to disclose any bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for payment under the guarantee and as co-principal debtor. The alleged illegibility of the Terms of Business annexure does not constitute a triable issue, as the defendant did not request a better copy or plead any substantive defence. The verifying affidavit and certificate of balance comply with Uniform Rule of Court 32(2), as the deponent is authorised and has personal knowledge of the records. The plaintiff's claim is substantiated by comprehensive annexures and particulars of claim. No adequate reasons…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Guarantee And Suretyship
• Specific Performance
• Certificate Of Balance
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Master Rental Agreement

South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd v Valucorp 105 c/c t/a Agrisolar and Others (374/2022)

South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd v Valucorp 105 c/c t/a Agrisolar and Others (374/2022) [2023] ZANCHC 82 (10 November 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

374/2022

Judge

Olivier AJ

The October 2022 Order was not final in effect nor definitive of the parties' rights and therefore not appealable. It envisaged a hearing of the summary judgment application in the event of non-compliance with the security condition, rather than automatic entry of judgment. The Respondents' late filing of their Opposing Affidavit was condoned as it did not prejudice the Applicant, given the postponements and opportunity for both parties to prepare. The Respondents disclosed defences relating to alleged simulated agreements and misrepresentation, which, if proven at trial, could constitute a c…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Master Rental Agreement
• Guarantee Liability
• Simulated Transaction
• National Credit Act
• Condonation Of Late Filing

Sumeil (Pty) Ltd v Coogal Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another (A120/2022)

Sumeil (Pty) Ltd v Coogal Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another (A120/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 277 (14 July 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A120/2022

Judges

MBHELE, REINDERS, LOUBSER

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a monetary judgment, finding no proof that third-party payments discharged the appellant’s debt before liquidation.

• Liquidation Proceedings
• Concursus Creditorium
• Set Off
• Void Dispositions
• Master Rental Agreement
• Liquidation-proceedings

Goscor Finance (PTY) Ltd and Another v Shakgapicle Trading and Projects Limited and Another (6822/2022)

Goscor Finance (PTY) Ltd and Another v Shakgapicle Trading and Projects Limited and Another (6822/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 860 (31 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6822/2022

Judge

Twala M L

Summary judgment was granted for rental arrears, termination penalties, liquidated damages, repair costs, service fees, interest, and attorney-client costs.

• Summary Judgment
• Master Rental Agreement
• Non Variation Clause
• Suretyship
• Liquidated Damages
• Early Termination Penalty

E -Sport Entertainment (PTY) Ltd v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd: In re: South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd v Online Arena Enterprises (PTY) Ltd t/a ORENA.com and Others (34125/2021)

E -Sport Entertainment (PTY) Ltd v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd: In re: South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd v Online Arena Enterprises (PTY) Ltd t/a ORENA.com and Others (34125/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 669 (7 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34125/2021

Judge

Twala M L

The court held that the particulars of claim, when read as a whole, sufficiently set out the plaintiff's cause of action based on the sale and transfer agreement and the alleged cessions. The allegations regarding the cession agreements are sound in law and the respondent will need to prove them at trial. The excipient's argument that separate contracts of cession were required was rejected; fulfilment of obligations under the Main Cession Agreements was sufficient to effect cession. The particulars of claim adequately inform the excipient of the case to be met, and on all reasonable readings…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Locus Standi
• Cession Of Contractual Rights
• Master Rental Agreement

South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited v BHM Bricks (Pty) Limited and Others (19666/2021)

South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited v BHM Bricks (Pty) Limited and Others (19666/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 784 (3 December 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19666/2021

Judge

Adam

The High Court refused summary judgment, found the defendants had disclosed a bona fide defence, admitted a late supplementary affidavit, and awarded its added costs against them.

• Summary Judgment
• Master Rental Agreement
• Bona Fide Defence
• Contract Cancellation
• Unconscionable Terms
• Summary-judgment

South African Securitisation Programme RF Ltd v Fullimput 11 (Pty) Ltd t/a Barons Place and Another (16569/2019)

South African Securitisation Programme RF Ltd v Fullimput 11 (Pty) Ltd t/a Barons Place and Another (16569/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 13 (4 February 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16569/2019

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that condonation for the late filing of the summary judgment application should be granted, as the delay was occasioned by the Covid-19 lockdown and no prejudice was shown to the defendants. The defendants' opposition was strategic rather than substantive. On the merits, the court held that the rental agreement and guarantee agreement excluded any right to withhold payment due to dissatisfaction with the equipment, and the defendants failed to establish a bona fide defence or grounds for rectification. The defendants admitted to signing the contract without reading it and did…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Condonation
• Rectification Of Contract
• Master Rental Agreement
• Guarantee Agreement

GBS Mutual Bank v Flighting Boyz Outdoor CC and Another (29946/2016)

GBS Mutual Bank v Flighting Boyz Outdoor CC and Another (29946/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 297 (12 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29946/2016

Judge

DB Du Preez

The High Court awarded arrear rentals under a master rental agreement but refused liquidated damages because the plaintiff failed to prove the equipment’s required appraised value.

• Liquidated Damages
• Master Rental Agreement
• Guarantee
• Locus Standi
• Arrear Rentals
• Liquidated-damages

Automated office Technology (Pty) Ltd t/a AOT Finance v International Colleges Group (Pty) Ltd (385/2017)

Automated office Technology (Pty) Ltd t/a AOT Finance v International Colleges Group (Pty) Ltd (385/2017) [2018] ZASCA 31 (8 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

385/2017

Judges

Navsa, Seriti, Swain, Pillay, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written cession agreement, properly construed in the context of the master rental agreement and the business relationship between the parties, included not only the rental agreements in existence at the time of the cession but also those concluded thereafter. The court found that a restrictive interpretation would render subsequent agreements inchoate and unenforceable, which would be unbusinesslike and contrary to the parties' intentions. The appellant was entitled to judgment for arrear and future rentals under all nine agreements, as well as attorn…

Source excerpt

• Cession Of Contractual Rights
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Master Rental Agreement
• Attorney And Client Costs