South Africa Case Law

ABSA Bank Limited v Rosenburg and Another (1255/2022)

ABSA Bank Limited v Rosenburg and Another (1255/2022) [2024] ZASCA 58 (24 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1255/2022

Judges

Petse, Mokgohloa, Mothle, Binns Ward, Tokota

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the guarantee agreement was not enforceable against the respondents because ABSA Bank failed to perform its reciprocal obligation to increase the credit facility as contemplated in the agreement. The court found that the guarantee was provided as a condition precedent for the contemplated increase in the facility, and the respondents' liability as guarantors would only arise once ABSA Bank had implemented the increased facility. The principle of reciprocity applied, and the respondents were entitled to raise the exceptio non adempleti contractus as a defe…

Source excerpt

• Guarantee Agreement
• Contractual Interpretation
• Exceptio Non Adempleti Contractus
• Reciprocity Of Obligations
• Enforceability Of Guarantees

J.E v C.E

J.E v C.E [2023] ZAGPPHC 278; A292/2020 (2 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A292/2020

Judges

Mokose, Davis, Baloyi-Mbembele

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an interim order enforcing divorce settlement payment terms pending a separate action challenging the settlement.

• Settlement Agreement
• Specific Performance
• Reciprocity Of Obligations
• Mora Interest
• Divorce-settlement
• Specific-performance

Tudor Hotel Brasserie and Bar (Pty) Ltd v Hencetrade 15 (Pty) Ltd (793/2016)

Tudor Hotel Brasserie and Bar (Pty) Ltd v Hencetrade 15 (Pty) Ltd (793/2016) [2017] ZASCA 111 (20 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

793/2016

Judges

Navsa, Leach, Swain, Molemela, Mbatha

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the lease agreement between the parties expressly required the appellant to pay rental monthly in advance, without deduction or set-off, and excluded the principle of reciprocity. The relevant clauses (10.1 and 21.1.3) precluded the appellant from withholding or deferring payment of rental for any reason, including the respondent's failure to grant full beneficial occupation of the premises. The court distinguished Poynton v Cran on the basis that, in that case, rent was payable in arrear and reciprocity applied, whereas in the present case, the contract…

Source excerpt

• Lease Agreement
• Reciprocity Of Obligations
• Remission Of Rent
• Eviction
• Contractual Interpretation

Herr v Innomet (Pty) Ltd Limited (394/2015)

Herr v Innomet (Pty) Ltd Limited (394/2015) [2016] ZASCA 82 (31 May 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

394/2015

Judges

Ponnan, Majiedt, Saldulker, Swain, Zondi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the landlord, Innomet, failed in its obligation to provide the lessee, Herr, with peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the premises as required by the lease agreement. The planned major construction directly below the leased apartment rendered the premises uninhabitable, a fact conceded by the landlord's representative. The landlord did not respond to the lessee's notifications nor did it take steps to prevent the disturbance by invoking the body corporate's conduct rules. As a result, the lessee was justified in vacating the premises and entitled to re…

Source excerpt

• Lease Agreement
• Reciprocity Of Obligations
• Peaceful And Undisturbed Occupation
• Rental Deposit
• Contractual Damages

Miloc Financial Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Logistic Technologies (Pty) Ltd (233/07)

Miloc Financial Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Logistic Technologies (Pty) Ltd (233/07) [2008] ZASCA 40; [2008] 3 All SA 395 (SCA); 2008 (4) SA 325 (SCA) (28 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

233/07

Judges

Farlam, Howie, Cloete, Van Heerden, Snyders

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not entitled to cancel the Moolman-Sigma and USA agreements, nor to claim the outstanding amounts under the old indebtedness. The court found that the payments made by the eleventh respondent were properly appropriated to the Sigma agreement, and the appellant was obliged to release the Sigma shares upon receipt of payment. The appellant's refusal to release the shares placed it in mora, and the principle of reciprocity applied, entitling the respondents to withhold payment under the USA agreement. The respondents' defence based on the e…

Source excerpt

• Reciprocity Of Obligations
• Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus
• Appropriation Of Payments
• Novation
• Rectification Of Contracts

Coleman v Sleep (44/04/01)

Coleman v Sleep (44/04/01) [2004] ZAGPHC 36 (11 November 2004)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

3644/04

Judge

Willis

The High Court dismissed a claim for payment under a sale and restraint agreement because the applicant did not plead or prove compliance with his own reciprocal obligations.

• Restraint Of Trade
• Reciprocity Of Obligations
• Breach Of Contract
• Restraint-of-trade
• Reciprocity-of-obligations
• Breach-of-contract

De Beer v Keyser and Others (195/2000)

De Beer v Keyser and Others (195/2000) [2001] ZASCA 128; [2002] 1 All SA 368 (A); 2002 (1) SA 827 (SCA) (23 November 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

195/2000

Judges

Marais, Streicher, Cloete, Brand, Nugent

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a franchise agreement was sufficiently certain, not contrary to public policy, and enforceable. The appeal was dismissed.

• Franchise Agreement
• Contract Vagueness
• Public Policy
• Reciprocity Of Obligations
• Franchise-agreement
• Contract-vagueness