South Africa Case Law

BKB Limited v Bezuidenhout (3115/2017)

BKB Limited v Bezuidenhout (3115/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 18 (5 March 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3115/2017

Judge

G H Bloem

The court found that only one oral agreement was concluded between BKB Limited and the defendant, Pieter Bezuidenhout, for the sale and delivery of fertilizer, with payment due only upon demand. The evidence established that BKB Limited was the contracting party at the relevant time. The parties expressly agreed that payment would only be due upon demand, and demand was made on 14 June 2017. Therefore, prescription did not begin to run until demand was made, and the claim had not prescribed. The defendant's special plea of prescription was dismissed. The plaintiff proved its claim for R318 11…

Source excerpt

• Oral Contract
• Prescription Act
• Payment On Demand
• Summary Judgment
• Costs Award

Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (12677/14)

Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd (12677/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 214 (5 November 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12677/14

Judge

N J Yekiso

The High Court granted leave to appeal on whether prescription barred a loan claim payable on demand, finding reasonable prospects of a different outcome.

• Prescription
• Loan Agreement
• Provisional Winding Up
• Payment On Demand
• Loan-agreement
• Leave-to-appeal

Stocks Building Gauteng (Pty) Ltd v Federated Insurance Guarantee Brokers (Pty) Ltd (10406/2006)

Stocks Building Gauteng (Pty) Ltd v Federated Insurance Guarantee Brokers (Pty) Ltd (10406/2006) [2009] ZAKZDHC 7 (3 April 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

10406/2006

Judge

Van der Reyden

The court held that the present matter was not materially distinguishable from the Full Bench decision in Federated Insurance Guarantee Brokers (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg Development Agency (Pty) Ltd. The guarantee issued by the respondent was payable upon written demand following cancellation of the subcontract due to default, as stipulated in clause 5 of the JBCC agreement. The respondent's liability was triggered by the applicant's compliance with the contractual requirements for demand and cancellation. The respondent's initial defence regarding non-compliance was abandoned, and its counsel…

Source excerpt

• Construction Guarantee
• Jbcc Subcontract Agreement
• Payment On Demand
• Interpretation Of Contract
• Interest A Tempore Morae