South Africa Case Law

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24)

Set Square Developments (Pty) Ltd v Power Guarantees (Pty) Ltd and Another (099/2023; 150/24) [2025] ZASCA 64 (20 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

099/23; 150/24

Judges

Meyer, Matojane, Unterhalter, Phatshoane, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the three on-demand guarantees issued by Power Guarantees in favour of Set Square Developments were autonomous instruments, independent of the underlying construction contracts. The court found that Set Square complied with the requirements for calling up the guarantees by providing written demands and notices of termination due to contractor default. Power Guarantees' defences based on the alleged non-existence or difference of the underlying contracts were rejected, as the parties to those contracts performed their obligations and did not dispute their…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantees
• Performance Bonds
• Fraud Exception
• Contractual Autonomy
• Mistake In Contract
• Unconscionability Exception

CBZ Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd ; In Re Eskom Holding SOC Ltd v Zurich Insurance and Others (2022/5427)

CBZ Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd ; In Re Eskom Holding SOC Ltd v Zurich Insurance and Others (2022/5427) [2023] ZAGPJHC 470 (15 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/5427

Judge

E Dreyer

The High Court refused to remove CBZ Solutions as a defendant, finding it had a possible direct and substantial interest in the underlying dispute.

• Joinder And Misjoinder
• Contractual Guarantees
• Performance Bonds
• Retention Money
• Rule 10
• Rule 30

Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v Hitachi Power Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (139/2013)

Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd v Hitachi Power Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (139/2013) [2013] ZASCA 101 (12 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

139/2013

Judges

Mthiyane, Brand, Shongwe, Majiedt, Petse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Eskom’s guarantees were on-demand guarantees, requiring no prior notice to Hitachi before Eskom called them up.

• Demand Guarantees
• Performance Bonds
• Final Interdict
• Contractual Interpretation
• Demand-guarantees
• Performance-bonds

Zanbuild Construction (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Limited and Others (2083/2009)

Zanbuild Construction (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Limited and Others (2083/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 233 (19 June 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2083/2009

Judge

W J Louw

The court held that the guarantees must be interpreted in conjunction with the main construction contracts. The department was not entitled to call up the full amount of the guarantees without quantifying the amount due and payable as a result of a breach by the applicant. The guarantee's wording required that only amounts 'owing and due' on the expiry date of the notice of withdrawal could be claimed. Since the department neither alleged nor established any quantified claim due on the relevant date, it was not entitled to recover any part of the guaranteed amounts. The guarantees did not ope…

Source excerpt

• Construction Guarantees
• Performance Bonds
• Interdictory Relief
• Contractual Interpretation