South Africa Case Law

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24)

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24) [2025] ZASCA 64 (20 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

099/23; 150/24

Judges

Meyer, Matojane, Unterhalter, Phatshoane, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the three on-demand guarantees issued by Power Guarantees in favour of Set Square Developments were autonomous instruments, independent of the underlying construction contracts. The court found that Set Square complied with the requirements for calling up the guarantees by providing written demands and notices of termination due to contractor default. Power Guarantees' defences based on the alleged non-existence or difference of the underlying contracts were rejected, as the parties to those contracts performed their obligations and did not dispute their…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantees
• Performance Bonds
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Autonomy
• Mistake In Contract
• Unconscionability Exception

Ensemble Hotel Holdings Proprietary Limited v Gunzenhauser and Another (2021/10258)

Ensemble Hotel Holdings Proprietary Limited v Gunzenhauser and Another (2021/10258) [2022] ZAGPJHC 726 (28 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/10258

Judge

G Kairinos

The court rectified a lease to remove the first respondent as co-lessee, finding she filled in her details by mistake and only the company was meant to lease.

• Rectification Of Contract
• Lease Agreement
• Mistake In Contract
• Onus Of Proof
• Oral Evidence
• Costs Order

Mustek Limited v Mutual and Federal Risk Financing (Pty) Ltd (2017/41419)

Mustek Limited v Mutual and Federal Risk Financing (Pty) Ltd (2017/41419) [2019] ZAGPJHC 235 (29 July 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2017/41419

Judge

Sutherland

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any mistake by the defendant in the drafting of the guarantee. The evidence demonstrated that the inclusion of the suspensive condition was a deliberate act by the defendant, motivated by the lack of payment of the premium and provision of collateral. There was no common and continuing intention to issue an unconditional guarantee at the time the contract was concluded. The facts and probabilities supported the defendant's position that the guarantee would only be effective upon fulfilment of the condition. Accordingly, the requirements for r…

Source excerpt

• Rectification Of Contract
• Credit Guarantee
• Contractual Intention
• Mistake In Contract
• Unconditional Vs Conditional Guarantee

Freysinnet (Pty) Ltd v Super Kwik Slabs CC and Another (24719/2017)

Freysinnet (Pty) Ltd v Super Kwik Slabs CC and Another (24719/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 124 (18 April 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24719/2017

Judge

A Millar

Summary judgment was granted where the respondents’ affidavit failed to set out a bona fide defence to an acknowledged debt and suretyship.

• Summary Judgment
• Acknowledgment Of Debt
• Suretyship
• Counterclaim
• Rule 32
• Mistake In Contract

Ntanzi and Another v Draht (12726/2013)

Ntanzi and Another v Draht (12726/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 363 (18 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12726/2013

Judge

Nochumsohn

The High Court granted leave to amend a plea and counterclaim to seek rectification of a building contract price, holding the dispute should be tested at trial.

• Rectification Of Contract
• Pleading Amendment
• Building Contract Dispute
• Mistake In Contract
• Costs Order
• Pleading-amendment

J.L v W.T.L (69491/2014)

J.L v W.T.L (69491/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 220 (17 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69491/2014

Judge

S A M Baqwa

High Court rectified an ante-nuptial contract after finding the parties intended zero starting values for accrual, and the document wrongly recorded R5 170 000 for the plaintiff.

• Rectification Of Contract
• Ante Nuptial Contract
• Mistake In Contract
• Separation Of Issues
• Rectification-of-contract
• Ante-nuptial-contract

Herman v Oosthuizen (16 793/2013)

Herman v Oosthuizen (16 793/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 34 (26 March 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16 793/2013

Judge

Dlodlo

High Court held the defendant bound by a signed fee mandate and rejected defences of mistake and unsound mind, ordering payment of legal fees and costs.

• Attorney Client Fees
• Contractual Capacity
• Mistake In Contract
• Onus Of Proof
• Attorney-client-fees
• Mistake-in-contract

Nedbank Limited v Sheriff of the High Court Roodepoort and Another; InRe: Nedbank Limited v Willows and Another (2009/121)

Nedbank Limited v Sheriff of the High Court Roodepoort and Another; InRe: Nedbank Limited v Willows and Another (2009/121) [2014] ZAGPJHC 155 (6 June 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/121

Judge

Reyneke

The High Court held that Nedbank had locus standi to cancel a sale in execution and ordered the auction sale declared void, with compensation for the purchaser.

• Sale In Execution
• Locus Standi
• Tripartite Contract
• Mistake In Contract
• Specific Performance
• Sale-in-execution

Parker v Paradigm Investments 444 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2840/2013)

Parker v Paradigm Investments 444 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2840/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 68 (20 March 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2840/2013

Judge

Monaledi, AJ

Opposed motion over a disputed immovable property sale was not decided on affidavit; the High Court referred the matter to trial and reserved costs.

• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Mistake In Contract
• Authority Of Liquidators
• Dispute Of Fact
• Motion Proceedings
• Referral To Trial

Bayview Construction (Pty) Ltd v Eldorado Trading CC and Another (1316/13)

Bayview Construction (Pty) Ltd v Eldorado Trading CC and Another (1316/13) [2013] ZAECPEHC 43 (6 September 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1316/13

Judge

N G Beshe

The court found that the defendants had disclosed sufficient facts to constitute a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment. The defendants provided a detailed account of their misgivings regarding the settlement agreement and the basis for their belief that the amount acknowledged as owing was incorrect. The court accepted that the defence was not vague or sketchy and that the facts disclosed, if proven, could justify setting aside the settlement agreement on the grounds of mistake. Accordingly, the application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants wer…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Settlement Agreement
• Suretyship
• Res Judicata
• Mistake In Contract