Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Standard Bank of South Africa v Regenergy (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/060849) [2025] ZAGPJHC 388 (22 April 2025)
The High Court refused default judgment against Regenergy because the joined guarantor had pleaded a defence that, if accepted, would defeat the claim against both respondents.
Pioneer Drill and Blast (Pty) Ltd v Deysel (055056/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1131 (4 November 2024)
The court found that Mr Deysel is liable to Pioneer as surety and co-principal debtor for the debt owed by Deymine under the services agreement. The suretyship agreement was validly concluded, and Mr Deysel knowingly signed it in his personal capacity. The cession agreement did not extinguish or vary the obligations of Deymine or Mr Deysel; it merely provided additional security for Pioneer. The defence of non-joinder was rejected, as Deymine does not have a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The court held that no real, genuine, or bona fide disput…
Source excerpt
Jones v Compendium Group Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd (DA20/2023; DA11/2024) [2024] ZALAC 49 (11 October 2024)
The Labour Appeal Court held that a consultancy agreement did not novate an earlier restraint of trade, and dismissed both appeals with costs.
Nissan South Africa (Proprietary) Limited v Senyatsi (1319/21) [2024] ZAGPPHC 930 (26 September 2024)
The High Court held that a JICA training agreement survived a later employment contract, ordered repayment of reduced expenses, and granted judgment for the employer.
Best Drive Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Lewis (2022/027451) [2024] ZAGPJHC 895 (17 September 2024)
The court found that the 2019 loan agreement is a separate and distinct contract from the 2018 agreement, as evidenced by the presence of an 'entire agreement' clause (clause 11.6) which expressly supersedes all prior agreements. The applicants' attempt to plead that the 2019 agreement is a mere amendment of the 2018 agreement is not sustainable, as the text and structure of the two agreements differ materially in loan amount, interest provisions, and the absence of a suretyship clause in the 2019 agreement. The suretyship executed by the respondent relates only to the 2018 agreement and cann…
Source excerpt
Nissan South Africa (Proprietary) Ltd v Senyatsi (1319/21) [2024] ZAGPPHC 293 (22 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for absolution from the instance, finding the plaintiff had established a prima facie case on liability and damages.
Assetline South Africa (Pty) Ltd v MLM and Associates Inc and Another (7960/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 759 (4 July 2023)
The High Court held that the refinancing agreement was void under the NCA for lack of affordability evidence and excessive default charges, dismissing the application.
Smit En Maree Attorneys v Maree VD Berg Attorneys (HCAA07/2022) [2023] ZALMPPHC 39 (14 April 2023)
The appeal concerned whether a warrant of execution for taxed costs could be set aside after a letter proposing waiver on condition of a meeting was fulfilled.
Shackleton Credit Management CC v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 200; 54103/2012 (17 March 2023)
The High Court held that a settlement agreement did not novate the debt, treated the debt as a judgment debt, granted default judgment, and dismissed rescission.
Hennops Sport (Pty) Ltd v Luhan Auto (Pty) Ltd (A52/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 953 (2 December 2022)
The court held that the COVID-19 lockdown regulations did not constitute supervening impossibility of performance under the lease agreement. The premises remained available for use and enjoyment, and the respondent's inability to generate income was a commercial risk, not a legal impossibility. The lease agreement was not amended or novated, as the non-variation clause was not complied with and no new agreement was signed. Rectification was not available as there was no common mistake at the time of contracting. The penalty for late payment was enforceable as agreed, and the respondent failed…
Source excerpt
Explore more
