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
Umzinyathi District Municipality v Fusion Guarantees (Pty) Ltd (23247/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 754 (22 May 2025)
The High Court held that a performance guarantee was autonomous and enforceable on the plaintiff’s written demand, ordering the defendant to pay the guaranteed sum, interest, and costs.
Concor Construction (Pty) Ltd v Old Mutual Alternative Risk Transfer Insure Ltd and Others (2025-064595) [2025] ZAGPJHC 472 (16 May 2025)
The High Court struck an urgent application to interdict payment under a guarantee, finding no urgency, no prima facie right, and no shown irreparable prejudice.
EPCM Consultants SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Guardrisk Insurance Co Ltd and Others (52933/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 428 (6 May 2025)
The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interdict Guardrisk from paying under the counter-guarantees. Their allegations of fraud related to TSK's conduct, not Guardrisk's, and there was no evidence that Guardrisk acted fraudulently or with knowledge of fraud. The applicants lacked standing, as they had no privity of contract or legal interest in the relationship between Guardrisk and SCB SA. The guarantees had not expired at the time of TSK's demand, and the applicants did not satisfy the requirements for an interdict, including balance of convenience and absence of alternat…
Source excerpt
Imvula Roads and Civils (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holland Insurance Co. Ltd and Another (2024-104602) [2025] ZAGPJHC 12 (14 January 2025)
The court found that the guarantees in question are on-demand guarantees, requiring only a written demand and notice of termination from the beneficiary to trigger payment. The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interdict payment, as they did not prove fraud or unconscionable conduct on the part of the second respondent. The court held that disputes regarding the validity of the contract termination are irrelevant to the guarantor's obligation to pay under an on-demand guarantee. The fraud exception is narrowly construed and was not established on the facts. The court furth…
Source excerpt
Niemand v Hollard Insurance Company Limited (13691/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1203 (22 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed leave to appeal, finding no good prospects of success and holding that the respondent was entitled to honour the guarantees.
Joint Venture Comprising Gorogang Plant Razz Civils and Others v Infiniti Insurance Limited (02252/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1048 (15 October 2024)
The High Court held that the performance guarantee was a demand guarantee, upheld the Department’s demand, rejected fraud and common-law arguments, and set aside the interim interdict.
Consortium Comprising KC Cottrell Co Ltd and Others v Santam Limited and Others (2023/000702) [2024] ZAGPJHC 598 (26 June 2024)
The court found that the interim order restraining Santam from making payment under the performance guarantee is not appealable as it does not meet the Zweni criteria of finality, definitiveness, or disposal of substantial relief. Recent jurisprudence allows for appealability based on the interests of justice, but the applicant failed to demonstrate any constitutional interest or irreparable harm. The plant is complete, and the employer is deriving income, so the prejudice that might justify immediate payment does not exist. The finding of fraud further weighs against granting leave to appeal…
Source excerpt
Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Ltd and Another (2023/028000) [2024] ZAGPJHC 540 (6 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed TDS’s application to intervene in litigation over an on-demand guarantee, holding it lacked a direct and substantial legal interest and had not shown clear fraud.
Bonifacio and Another v Lombard Insurance Company (247/2023) [2024] ZASCA 86 (4 June 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants were liable to indemnify the respondent for the payment made under the performance guarantee. The guarantee was autonomous and created an obligation to pay upon demand, irrespective of disputes in the underlying contract. The indemnity contract entitled the respondent to settle DBT's claim and seek indemnification from the appellants, and the settlement did not deprive the appellants of any procedural rights, as they failed to exercise those rights when available. The liability under the indemnity was not conditional upon a court finding ag…
Source excerpt
Grindrod Bank Limited v Culverwell & Another (17343/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 386 (18 April 2024)
The High Court refused leave to appeal in two consolidated Grindrod Bank matters, finding no reasonable prospects of success under the stricter section 17 test.
Explore more
