South Africa Case Law

Kpmm Roads and Earthworks (Pty) Ltd and Others v Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited (42704/2019)

Kpmm Roads and Earthworks (Pty) Ltd and Others v Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited (42704/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 352 (4 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42704/2019

Judge

Goedhart

The court found that while the applicants raised a novel issue regarding the interpretation of the guarantee, they failed to demonstrate that it was triable under established legal principles for on demand guarantees. The indemnity was not void for vagueness, and the arguments on this point added nothing new. Regarding the interest rate, the court acknowledged that correcting a patent error mero motu may be contentious, and there is a reasonable prospect another court could reach a different conclusion on this issue. Consequently, leave to appeal is granted, allowing the applicants to raise a…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• On Demand Guarantee
• Suretyship Liability
• Indemnity Enforcement
• Interest Rate Pleading Error

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Ltd and Another (2023/028000)

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Ltd and Another (2023/028000) [2024] ZAGPJHC 540 (6 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/028000

Judge

Fisher

The High Court dismissed TDS’s application to intervene in litigation over an on-demand guarantee, holding it lacked a direct and substantial legal interest and had not shown clear fraud.

• Joinder Of Parties
• On Demand Guarantee
• Fraud Exception
• Performance Guarantee
• Interdictory Relief
• Joinder

Compass Insurance Company Limited v Civmaq Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others (6998/2018)

Compass Insurance Company Limited v Civmaq Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others (6998/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 412 (27 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6998/2018

Judge

F Bezuidenhout

The High Court held the respondents liable under a counter-indemnity and suretyship for a guarantee payment, rejecting objections about authority, misrepresentation, public policy and contract terms.

• Suretyship
• Counter Indemnity
• On Demand Guarantee
• Public Policy
• Misrepresentation
• Authority Of Deponent

Lombard Insurance Company Ltd v McCrae (09093/2013)

Lombard Insurance Company Ltd v McCrae (09093/2013) [2018] ZAGPJHC 497 (16 August 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

09093/2013

Judge

Fisher

The court found that the factual and legal issues raised by the plea of prescription and the merits were interwoven and could not be conveniently separated. The claim was based on a hierarchy of obligations within a broader contractual context, and attempting to separate the issues would likely lead to a broader enquiry rather than an expeditious resolution. The court was not persuaded that separation would be more convenient or result in a shorter determination of the matter. Accordingly, the application for separation was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Issues
• Prescription
• Suretyship
• On Demand Guarantee

All Teckline Contractors Incorporated v Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited (37706/15)

All Teckline Contractors Incorporated v Mutual and Federal Insurance Company Limited (37706/15) [2017] ZAGPJHC 272 (18 September 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

37706/15

Judge

Nkosi

The court found that the applicant's demand for payment under the guarantee was made in writing, on its letterhead, and complied substantially and materially with the requirements of the guarantee. The respondent's argument that the demand failed to specify payment circumstances was rejected, as the letterhead and content clearly indicated the applicant's entitlement. The guarantee was an on-demand instrument, creating a primary obligation independent of the underlying contract. The only exception to payment would be fraud, which was not established or pleaded with sufficient clarity. The thi…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantee
• Indemnity
• Suretyship
• Contractual Compliance
• Fraud Exception

Hollard Insurance Company Limited v Du Toit and Another (2015/28447)

Hollard Insurance Company Limited v Du Toit and Another (2015/28447) [2017] ZAGPJHC 468 (31 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/28447

Judge

Windell

The court found that the guarantee issued by the applicant was an on-demand instrument, requiring payment upon written demand and a certificate from the beneficiary. The respondents admitted the execution of the indemnity and suretyship agreements and the issuance of the guarantee. The conditions for the lapse of the guarantee, as set out in clause 4.1, had not been fulfilled, as the contract was terminated prior to completion and the required certificates had not been issued. The doctrine of fictional fulfilment was not applicable, as the guarantee's wording and the indemnity agreements excl…

Source excerpt

• Performance Guarantee
• Suretyship
• Indemnity
• On Demand Guarantee
• Doctrine Of Fictional Fulfilment

Grinaker LTA Rail Link Joint Venture v Absa Insurance Company Limited and Others (24110/2014)

Grinaker LTA Rail Link Joint Venture v Absa Insurance Company Limited and Others (24110/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 302 (10 November 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24110/2014

Judge

DC Fisher

The High Court held that an on-demand construction guarantee required strict compliance, and dismissed the application because the certificate did not meet its terms.

• Performance Guarantee
• Strict Compliance
• Certificate Of Breach
• On Demand Guarantee
• Performance-guarantee
• Strict-compliance