Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Andzanimikula Trading (Pty) Ltd v TCI-TISO RF (Pty) Ltd (2021/17889) [2025] ZAGPJHC 655 (17 March 2025)
The High Court held that the defendant could not deduct a 5% penalty under clause 8.1; the clause provided for interest only. Judgment went to the plaintiff.
De Abreu and Another v Pestana Family Meat and Chicken CC and Another (2327/2005) [2024] ZAGPPHC 338 (7 April 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs proved their claim arising from a failed business sale and ordered repayment, interest, and costs.
Khuselani Security and Risk (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (5560/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 449 (15 November 2023)
The court found that a real and bona fide dispute of fact existed regarding whether the applicant rendered services in accordance with the contract, whether the claimed invoices had prescribed, and whether penalties could be levied. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the matter had to be determined on the respondent's version, which was not so untenable as to be rejected. The existence of unresolved factual disputes rendered the application unsuitable for determination on motion proceedings. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
De Abreu and Another v Pestana Family Meat and Chicken CC and Another (2327/2005) [2022] ZAGPJHC 462 (11 July 2022)
The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case by proving the existence of a valid contract, its material terms, and breach by the defendants. The penalty clause invoked by the defendants is subject to the Conventional Penalty Act, which empowers the court to reduce the penalty if it is disproportionate to the actual prejudice suffered. As the defendants failed to plead or prove any loss resulting from the breach, the penalty stands to be reduced to zero. Consequently, the application for absolution from the instance was refused, and the defendants were ordered to pay…
Source excerpt
Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd v Seventy Five on Maude (Pty) Ltd and Another (13909/21) [2022] ZAGPJHC 352 (24 May 2022)
The High Court dismissed a review of an arbitral award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and no gross irregularity was shown.
Discovery Insure Limited v Masindi (85613/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 198 (14 March 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The forfeiture clause in the insurance contract, while explicit, could not operate to retrospectively forfeit valid claims that had already accrued and been settled prior to the fraudulent breach. Such retrospective forfeiture is punitive and constitutes a penalty, thereby invoking the Conventional Penalties Act. The court considered the relevant authorities and principles, concluding that only the fraudulent portion of the claim was subject to forfeiture. The applicant's arguments regarding th…
Source excerpt
Jovan Projects (Pty) Ltd v ICB Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (2020/32427) [2021] ZAGPJHC 836 (20 December 2021)
Summary judgment was granted for unpaid certified construction invoices. The court held the certificates were liquid documents and rejected the respondent’s defence and counterclaim.
Stewarts and Lloyds Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Solid Steel Construction (Pty) Ltd (A3070/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 739 (10 November 2021)
Appeal upheld: the court enforced the contractually agreed interest rate and date, holding that mora arose ex re and no demand was required.
Da Conceicao v Milheiro N.O. and Another (2020/16410) [2021] ZAGPJHC 425 (15 September 2021)
The court found that the applicant validly cancelled the agreement of sale before the respondents, having complied with the notice requirements stipulated in the contract. Notices sent via email were deemed sufficient under the domicilium clause, and the respondents' payments into their attorneys' trust account did not constitute compliance with the agreement. The applicant’s trade license was found to be valid and in force at the effective date, and the warranty clause was not breached, as the applicant was not responsible for rezoning the property. The respondents failed to provide evidence…
Source excerpt
Tetra Pak S.A (Pty) Limited v Blakey Investments (Pty) Limited (14082/2011) [2021] ZAKZDHC 6; 2021 (6) SA 252 (KZD) (11 March 2021)
The High Court rescinded a registrar’s judgment, held a R15 million acceleration clause was a penalty, reduced it to nil, and declared compliance with the settlement.
Explore more
