South Africa Case Law

Multimedia and Satelite Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Multichoice Support Services (Pty) Ltd (D8232/2023)

Multimedia and Satelite Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Multichoice Support Services (Pty) Ltd (D8232/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 52 (8 August 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D8232/2023

Judge

Sanders AJ

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency, as any urgency was self-created by their delay in launching the application. The interdict sought was impermissible because it would effectively prevent the respondent from ever terminating the agreement, amounting to a final interdict rather than interim relief. The applicants failed to launch arbitration proceedings, which they claimed would limit the lifespan of the interdict, and their conduct raised doubts about their bona fides. The respondent provided strong grounds for termination, including unrefuted allegations…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Contract Termination
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Parole Evidence Rule

Meechan v Naude and Another (A5003/2019)

Meechan v Naude and Another (A5003/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 272 (30 October 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5003/2019

Judges

Noko MV, Senyatsi ML, Crutchfield A

Appeal over a disputed profit-sharing arrangement from a property deal was dismissed. The court upheld the respondent’s version and found no basis to interfere.

• Joint Venture Dispute
• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Contractual Interpretation
• Tax Implications
• Credibility Assessment

Cory v City Manager: City of Tshwane Municipality and Another (JS146/17)

Cory v City Manager: City of Tshwane Municipality and Another (JS146/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 257 (5 September 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS146/17

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Labour Court held that the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable, dismissed the respondents’ counter-application to set it aside or rectify it, and granted costs.

• Settlement Agreement
• Rectification
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Costs Order
• Settlement-agreement
• Parole-evidence-rule

Nedbank Limited v Stopforth and Others (7991/2017)

Nedbank Limited v Stopforth and Others (7991/2017) [2019] ZALMPPHC 35 (1 August 2019)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7991/2017

Judge

MG Phatudi

The court held that R800,000 paid under a settlement deed was not full and final settlement of the defendants’ debt, and granted Nedbank judgment.

• Suretyship
• Settlement Agreements
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Debt Recovery
• Contract Interpretation
• Parole-evidence-rule

Kidrogen (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C814/2016)

Kidrogen (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C814/2016) [2018] ZALCCT 27; (2018) 39 ILJ 2560 (LC) (1 August 2018)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C814/2016

Judge

Lagrange

Labour Court review of an award finding unfair dismissal for dishonesty and procedural bias. The court set aside the substantive unfairness finding and upheld procedural unfairness.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Dishonesty In Employment
• Remuneration Disputes
• Procedural Fairness
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Unfair-dismissal

Namabiti Technologies v Kahari (A266/15)

Namabiti Technologies v Kahari (A266/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1095 (1 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A266/15

Judges

Molahlehi, Twala

The court held that the written contract between the parties expressly provided for the respondent to render IT services at DBSA-Midrand. The respondent conceded that he did not perform any duties at DBSA-Midrand and that any change in the place of performance required a written amendment signed by both parties, as stipulated in the contract. There was no evidence of such a written amendment. Oral instructions to perform at Tshwane did not constitute a valid variation of the contract. Furthermore, the respondent failed to plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform at the contractual…

Source excerpt

• Specific Performance
• Contract Interpretation
• Parole Evidence Rule

Namabiti Technologies v Kahari (A266/15)

Namabiti Technologies v Kahari (A266/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 990 (1 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A266/15

Judges

E Molahlehi, M Twala

High Court appeal over specific performance failed where a service provider had not performed at the contractually specified site and no written variation was proved.

• Specific Performance
• Contract Interpretation
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Specific-performance
• Contract-interpretation
• Parol-evidence-rule

Ebrahim v Breezewood Trading 88 CC t/a Mica Celtis (A5/2015)

Ebrahim v Breezewood Trading 88 CC t/a Mica Celtis (A5/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 728 (18 August 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A5/2015

Judges

Makhoba, R G Tolmay, N Kollapen

The court refused the application to admit new evidence on appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not presenting the evidence at trial, that the evidence lacked a prima facie likelihood of truth, and that it was not materially relevant. The trial court's findings that the appellant misappropriated funds from the respondent were upheld, as there was no credible evidence of a loan account and the probabilities favoured the respondent's version. The court found that the Shifren rule and the parole evidence rule were correctly applied, and that the respo…

Source excerpt

• Close Corporation Member Dispute
• Misappropriation Of Funds
• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Non Variation Clause

Liquor Runners PE v National Bargaining Council for the Road Frieght And Logistics Industry and Others (C552/14)

Liquor Runners PE v National Bargaining Council for the Road Frieght And Logistics Industry and Others (C552/14) [2015] ZALCCT 36 (30 April 2015)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C552/14

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a jurisdictional ruling after finding the arbitrator failed to hear oral evidence on whether owner-drivers were employees.

• Employment Relationship
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Owner Driver Scheme
• Collective Agreement
• Review Of Arbitration
• Parole Evidence Rule

Broadway Sweet v Bon Bon Sweets CC and Another (2008/11025)

Broadway Sweet v Bon Bon Sweets CC and Another (2008/11025) [2014] ZAGPJHC 262 (15 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2008/11025

Judge

Tshabalala

High Court held that the sellers misrepresented the condition and capacity of machinery sold, entitling the buyer to resile and recover the purchase price.

• Misrepresentation
• Purchase And Sale
• Voetstoots Clause
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Restitution
• Counterclaim