South Africa Case Law

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Limited (028000/2023)

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Limited (028000/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 729 (21 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

028000/2023

Judge

Wilson

The court found that, although it disagreed with the reasoning of Justice Lamont, the existence of a prior judgment treating the two demands as one continuous act created a reasonable prospect that another court might reach a different conclusion. This factual issue was material to the outcome, as treating the demands as one would mean Absa Bank's rejection was effective against both, potentially defeating Exxaro Coal's claim. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to a Full Court of the division.

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantee
• Leave To Appeal
• Payment Obligation
• Continuous Demand

Intengo Imoto (Pty) Ltd t/a Northcliff Nissan v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers CC t/a Hyundai Louis Trichardt (474/2024)

Intengo Imoto (Pty) Ltd t/a Northcliff Nissan v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers CC t/a Hyundai Louis Trichardt (474/2024) [2025] ZASCA 93 (20 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

474/2024

Judges

Zondi, Mothle, Weiner, Kathree-Setiloane, Coppin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a purchaser who paid into a fraudulent account after failing to verify bank details had not discharged its payment obligation.

• Payment Obligation
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Business Email Compromise
• Risk Of Loss
• Contract Breach
• Electronic-funds-transfer

Gripper & Company (Pty) Ltd v Ganedhi Trading Enterprises CC (4725/2024)

Gripper & Company (Pty) Ltd v Ganedhi Trading Enterprises CC (4725/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 352; 2025 (3) SA 279 (WCC) (6 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4725/2024

Judge

M W Janisch

The High Court held that a debtor who pays a fraudulent bank account without proper verification remains liable for the debt, and ordered payment of the purchase price plus interest and costs.

• Payment Obligation
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Debtor Risk
• Estoppel
• Electronic-funds-transfer

Darryl Ackerman Attorneys v Bhawan and Another (2021/53620)

Darryl Ackerman Attorneys v Bhawan and Another (2021/53620) [2022] ZAGPJHC 930 (23 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/53620

Judge

Swanepoel AJ

The High Court dismissed a claim that two respondents were personally liable for a law firm’s debt to Eldo Telecommunications because the required payment was never made.

• Personal Liability Of Directors
• Contractual Acceptance
• Conditional Agreement
• Payment Obligation
• Contractual-acceptance
• Personal-liability

Harbour Arch Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Capital Propfund 4 (Pty) Ltd (437/2020)

Harbour Arch Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Capital Propfund 4 (Pty) Ltd (437/2020) [2021] ZASCA 108 (5 August 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

437/2020

Judges

Petse, Dambuza, Mbatha, Potterill, Poyo-Dlwati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the payment obligation under clause 18.3 of the leases assignment agreement did not survive the appellant's acquisition of ownership of the property. The Court found that the intention of the parties, as reflected in the agreement, was that the payment obligation was linked to the status of the appellant as sub-lessee under the land lease. Once the appellant became the owner, its rights and obligations as sub-lessee were extinguished by merger (confusio), and the development rights now flowed from ownership, not the lease. The respondent's argument that t…

Source excerpt

• Lease Assignment
• Merger Of Rights
• Contractual Interpretation
• Payment Obligation
• Confusio
• Development Rights

Shaw v Vertue and Others (5217/2019)

Shaw v Vertue and Others (5217/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 195 (7 December 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5217/2019

Judge

Fortuin

The court found that the purchaser's obligation under the deed of sale was to pay the full purchase price to the seller in cash against transfer. The conveyancer was appointed by the purchaser and there was no evidence of a mandate from the seller authorising the conveyancer to act as his agent for receipt of payment. Payment into the conveyancer's trust account did not discharge the purchaser's obligation to the seller, especially since the funds were paid into a fraudulent account due to the conveyancer's error. The purchaser's defence that she was not liable was rejected, as the deed of sa…

Source excerpt

• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Mandate And Agency
• Payment Obligation
• Role Of Conveyancer
• Security For Purchase Price

Connecto Fasteners (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited; Jacobs Capital (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited (1000/18; 999/18)

Connecto Fasteners (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited; Jacobs Capital (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited (1000/18; 999/18) [2019] ZASCA 110 (13 September 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1000/18; 999/18

Judges

Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Tsoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment, finding the appellants' affidavit disclosed no bona fide defence under clause 3.2 of the Customer Agreement.

• Summary Judgment
• Contractual Interpretation
• Payment Obligation
• Affidavit Bona Fide Defence
• Summary-judgment
• Contractual-interpretation

Rosso Sport Auto CC v Viglietti Motors (Pty) Ltd (20900/08)

Rosso Sport Auto CC v Viglietti Motors (Pty) Ltd (20900/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 141 (26 August 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20900/08

Judge

Allie

The High Court refused leave to appeal in a dealership dispute, holding the payment clause unambiguous and finding the proposed appeal would have no practical effect.

• Contract Interpretation
• Leave To Appeal
• Dealer Agreement
• Payment Obligation
• Rule 49 11 Application
• Contract-interpretation

Pax Oil Verkope CC v Harringtons Ingelyf and Another (A220/2005)

Pax Oil Verkope CC v Harringtons Ingelyf and Another (A220/2005) [2006] ZAFSHC 28 (21 September 2006)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A220/2005

Judges

C.H.G. Van der Merwe, G.A. Hattingh, C. Van Zyl

The court held that the first respondent had to pay the sale proceeds to the appellant and that drawing a cheque did not amount to payment.

• Mandate
• Breach Of Contract
• Payment Obligation
• Trust Account
• Principal Agent Relationship
• Breach-of-contract

Auto Vita v Monumental Art Co (340/89)

Auto Vita v Monumental Art Co (340/89) [1991] ZASCA 28 (26 March 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

340/89

Judges

Hefer, Steyn, Goldstone

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a claim for R17,500, finding the oral agreement required payment on receipt and that the appellant could not stop the cheque.

• Oral Contract
• Payment Obligation
• Cheque Stoppage
• Contractual Intent
• Oral-contract
• Payment-obligation