South Africa Case Law

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Mogapi and Others (23784/2021)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Mogapi and Others (23784/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 133 (15 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

23784/2021

Judge

B C Wanless

The court found that the respondents failed to establish any breach of legal duty by the applicant or any factual basis for the alleged assurances that the guarantees would not be enforced. The documentary evidence consistently supported the applicant's version that the guarantees were operative and enforceable. The court held that public policy, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, does not permit refusal to enforce contractual terms unless their enforcement is so unfair, unreasonable, or unjust as to be contrary to public policy, which was not shown in this case. The respondents did…

Source excerpt

• Guarantee Enforcement
• Public Policy Defence
• Ubuntu In Contract
• Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment
• Release Of Guarantor
• Prejudice Defence

Firstrand Bank Limited v Nel and Another (2021/2462)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Nel and Another (2021/2462) [2022] ZAGPJHC 579 (16 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/2462

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the collateral provisions in the facility and loan agreements were not suspensive conditions affecting the validity of the principal debts, but terms regulating the utilisation of facilities. The applicant was entitled to waive such conditions in its sole discretion, and the respondents, as sole members of Servigraph, acquiesced to the validity of the agreements by their conduct. The respondents failed to provide factual evidence supporting their defences of public policy, constitutional values, or prejudice. The principles of Ubuntu, good faith, and reasonableness are no…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship Liability
• Public Policy Defence
• Ubuntu And Contract Law
• Waiver Of Conditions
• Business Rescue
• Contractual Interpretation

ABSA Bank Limited v Sable Hills Waterfront Estates CC and Others; ABSA Bank Limited v On Air Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/15210;2020/41768)

ABSA Bank Limited v Sable Hills Waterfront Estates CC and Others; ABSA Bank Limited v On Air Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/15210;2020/41768) [2022] ZAGPJHC 205; [2022] 2 All SA 767 (GJ) (15 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/15210;2020/41768

Judge

N.J. Graves

The High Court refused summary judgment in a Sable Hills debt claim but granted it in an On Air matter, focusing on Rule 32, security, and compromise.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Mortgage Bond
• Loan Agreement
• Public Policy Defence
• Compromise Settlement

Engen Petroleum Limited South Africa v Jai Hind EMCC CC and Another (11752/2020)

Engen Petroleum Limited South Africa v Jai Hind EMCC CC and Another (11752/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 540 (14 October 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11752/2020

Judge

Keightley

The court found that the settlement order, read in context and in light of its purpose, required Jai Hind to vacate the premises by 31 March 2020, regardless of whether the business was sold. The only exception was if an agreement of sale and a licence application were concluded by 31 December 2019, which did not occur. The post-31 December agreement with Orca did not alter Jai Hind's obligation to vacate, nor did it trigger any obligation on Engen to offer an operating lease to Orca. The holding over penalty under clause 12 became applicable upon Jai Hind's continued occupation. The Business…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Lease Termination
• Holding Over Penalty
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Petroleum Products Act
• Public Policy Defence

Cape Town 4 Properties (Pty) Ltd v Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited (2020/4130)

Cape Town 4 Properties (Pty) Ltd v Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited (2020/4130) [2021] ZAGPJHC 159 (26 May 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/4130

Judge

Ally

High Court held that a guarantor remained liable for mora interest after delayed payment under a performance guarantee, despite pending interdict proceedings.

• Performance Guarantee
• Mora Interest
• Prescribed Rate Of Interest Act
• Public Policy Defence
• Performance-guarantee
• Mora-interest

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Gounden and Another (19577/2019)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Gounden and Another (19577/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 136 (28 October 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19577/2019

Judge

J I Cloete

The High Court referred a bank’s claim on surety guarantees to trial after finding serious factual disputes about alleged prejudicial conduct and public policy.

• Suretyship
• Guarantee Enforcement
• Public Policy Defence
• Motion To Trial Referral
• Prejudice In Suretyship
• Contractual Fairness

Firstrand Bank Limited v Selloe and Others (M276/2017)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Selloe and Others (M276/2017) [2019] ZANWHC 32 (14 February 2019)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M276/2017

Judge

T Djaje

The High Court dismissed a bank’s claim against three sureties for failure to link them to the later facility agreement, but entered judgment against two unopposed respondents.

• Suretyship Liability
• Facility Agreement
• Default Judgment
• Public Policy Defence
• Costs Order
• Suretyship-liability

Nedbank Limited v De Wet du Plessis N.O. and Others (2182/2017)

Nedbank Limited v De Wet du Plessis N.O. and Others (2182/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 190 (19 October 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2182/2017

Judge

EA Pike

The court found that the defendants had disclosed a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment. Although the written agreement contained a non-variation clause (Shifren principle), the defendants raised a defence based on a verbal agreement for extension of payment, supported by allegations of unconscionability and public policy. The court accepted that, in appropriate circumstances, the enforcement of a written agreement may be refused if its operation is manifestly unreasonable or contrary to public policy. The defendants' defence was not clearly untenable and raised tr…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Public Policy Defence
• Shifren Principle

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Technofin (Pty) Ltd (239/2013)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Technofin (Pty) Ltd (239/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1214 (21 September 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

239/2013

Judge

R M Keightley

The High Court held that the bank could require repurchase of ceded rental contracts after Technofin breached warranties, and dismissed prescription and public policy defences.

• Breach Of Warranty
• Repurchase Obligation
• Contract Interpretation
• Prescription Act
• Rectification Of Contract
• Public Policy Defence

Ndubu and Others v First Rand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (1113/2016)

Ndubu and Others v First Rand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (1113/2016) [2017] ZASCA 61 (26 May 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1113/2016

Judges

Lewis, Tshiqi, Majiedt, Swain, Coppin

The court found that none of the three offers to purchase the vehicles were rejected by Wesbank or the liquidators. The first offer was withdrawn before any acceptance or rejection, the second was conditional on finance which was not obtained, and the third was submitted after the vehicles had already been sold. The appellants failed to prove any breach or prejudice by Wesbank that would release them from liability as sureties. The court further held that Wesbank complied with its obligations under the Insolvency Act and that the sale of the vehicles was valid. The appellants' miscellaneous d…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship Liability
• Mitigation Of Damages
• Release Of Surety
• Insolvency Act Application
• Public Policy Defence
• Credit Agreements