South Africa Case Law

W.M.T v M[...].T[...] .9[...] (Pty) Ltd and Others (D6021/2023)

W.M.T v M[...].T[...] .9[...] (Pty) Ltd and Others (D6021/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 19 (7 May 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D6021/2023

Judge

Mossop

The court found that there is a real and bona fide dispute of fact regarding whether an oral agreement was concluded between the applicant and the third respondent, and if so, on what terms. The correspondence and affidavits submitted by both parties reveal ongoing negotiations and conflicting interpretations, with no clear consensus. The existence of two emails from the third respondent could have led the applicant to believe an agreement was reached, but subsequent communications indicate otherwise. Given the limited scope of the issues and the interests of justice, the court determined tha…

Source excerpt

• Dispute Of Fact
• Oral Agreement
• Motion Vs Action
• Uniform Rule 6 5 G
• Company Director Remuneration

Trollip v Latrostax (Pty) Ltd and Others (3962/2024)

Trollip v Latrostax (Pty) Ltd and Others (3962/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 14 (10 February 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3962/2024

Judge

Mangena

The applicant failed to establish that Latrostax (Pty) Ltd does not have a bona fide defence to the claim for repayment of bridging finance. The authority of Mr Todd to bind Latrostax remains unresolved and is a triable issue. The documentary evidence, including financial statements and board minutes, does not conclusively prove Latrostax's indebtedness, and the explanation provided by Latrostax regarding the payment and the role of its shareholders is consistent with its defence. Summary judgment is inappropriate where material disputes of fact and authority exist, and these must be determin…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Authority Of Agent
• Oral Agreement
• Liquidated Claim
• Company Directors

Evorail (Pty) Ltd v Taylor and Another (2023/060147)

Evorail (Pty) Ltd v Taylor and Another (2023/060147) [2025] ZAGPJHC 14 (15 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/060147

Judge

A Friedman

Summary judgment was refused where the email said to acknowledge debt was too unclear to prove authority or an unequivocal admission on the papers.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Oral Agreement
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Rectification
• Prescription

Van Rooyen and Another v Simms and Others (2022/9719)

Van Rooyen and Another v Simms and Others (2022/9719) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1307 (27 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/9719

Judge

Windell

The court found that the relief sought by the applicants was not competent as an interim interdict, since its effect would be final rather than interim, and the applicants had already obtained interim relief which they failed to execute. There is a clear factual dispute regarding the terms and breach of the oral agreement, and the applicants have not demonstrated a clear right to the relief sought. The purpose of an interim interdict is to preserve the status quo pending final determination, not to grant final relief. The application for a mandatory interim interdict must therefore fail.

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Specific Performance
• Oral Agreement
• Possession Of Premises
• Breach Of Contract

Roka Media (Pty) Ltd v Kunene Makopo Risk Solutions (Pty) Ltd (55741/21)

Roka Media (Pty) Ltd v Kunene Makopo Risk Solutions (Pty) Ltd (55741/21) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1247 (5 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

55741/21

Judge

Windell

High Court contract dispute over app development services: Claim A succeeded for unpaid SLA amounts, but the alleged oral addendum failed.

• Breach Of Contract
• Service Level Agreement
• Remuneration Claim
• Termination Clause
• Oral Agreement
• Mora Ex Re

Ramoromisi v Tshabangu Attorneys and Others (A345/23)

Ramoromisi v Tshabangu Attorneys and Others (A345/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1136 (6 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A345/23

Judges

B Lesufi, GN Moshoana

Appeal dismissed after the High Court upheld absolution from the instance in a contract claim based on an alleged oral and WhatsApp agreement.

• Breach Of Contract
• Absolution From The Instance
• Oral Agreement
• Contractual Capacity
• Contingency Fee Arrangement
• Absolution-from-the-instance

White v Fluorovizion Holdings (Pty) Limited (048096/2022)

White v Fluorovizion Holdings (Pty) Limited (048096/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1073 (21 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

048096/2022

Judge

Den Hartog

The High Court rescinded a default judgment after finding the defendant had disclosed a bona fide defence, despite questionable default, in a share-sale dispute.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Oral Agreement
• Shareholders Agreement
• Conditions Precedent
• Triable Issue
• Rescission-of-judgment

Khari Investments (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality (5424/2018)

Khari Investments (Pty) Ltd v Mopani District Municipality (5424/2018) [2024] ZALMPPHC 86 (12 August 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5424/2018

Judge

Bresler

The High Court held that an oral municipal services agreement was unenforceable because section 116 of the MFMA requires such contracts to be in writing.

• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Supply Chain Management Policy
• Irregular Expenditure
• Enforceability Of Contracts
• Legality
• Oral Agreement

Lourens v Mathie and Others (A11/2024)

Lourens v Mathie and Others (A11/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1389 (8 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A11/2024

Judges

Mabesele, Swanepoel, Amien

The High Court held that the appellant showed a bona fide defence to a summary judgment claim over deceased funds transferred under an alleged oral agreement.

• Summary Judgment
• Oral Agreement
• Maintenance Of Surviving Spouses
• Administration Of Estates
• Donation
• Bona Fide Defence

Africa Wide Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited v Miganu Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited (8279/2019)

Africa Wide Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited v Miganu Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited (8279/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 518 (30 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8279/2019

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The High Court ordered discovery under Rule 35 and rejected a bid to defer it, finding no exceptional circumstances. The respondent’s striking out application also failed.

• Discovery
• Uniform Rule 35
• Oral Agreement
• Separation Of Issues
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Striking Out Application