Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2020] ZASCA 160

Zungu-Elgin Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Jeany Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (1138/2019)

Zungu-Elgin Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Jeany Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (1138/2019) [2020] ZASCA 160 (3 December 2020)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1138/2019
Judges
Ponnan, Van der Merwe, Nicholls, Ledwaba, Poyo-Dlwati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, at common law, a surety's right of recourse against the principal debtor arises only upon payment to the creditor. The respondents paid Hollard after the commencement of business rescue, and thus the appellant's liability to them did not exist immediately before business rescue began. Section 154(2) of the Companies Act does not alter this common law principle. The appellant's defence was bad in law, and the High Court correctly granted summary judgment in favour of the respondents.

Source excerpt

  • Suretyship
  • Business Rescue
  • Right Of Recourse
  • Companies Act
  • Summary Judgment
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2019] ZAKZDHC 38

Jeany Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zungu-Elgin Engineering (Pty) Ltd (D4936/18)

Jeany Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zungu-Elgin Engineering (Pty) Ltd (D4936/18) [2019] ZAKZDHC 38; 2020 (2) SA 504 (KZD) (30 July 2019)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
D4936/18
Judge
Chetty

The court found that the plaintiffs' right of recourse against the defendant, as principal debtor, only arose when they made payment to Hollard Insurance under the suretyship agreement. At the time the defendant entered business rescue, the plaintiffs did not have an enforceable claim and thus could not participate in the rescue plan. The statutory moratorium under s 154(2) of the Companies Act does not preclude the plaintiffs' claim, as their right of recourse was not yet liquidated or enforceable during business rescue. Furthermore, business rescue proceedings do not discharge the obligatio…

Source excerpt

  • Suretyship
  • Business Rescue
  • Right Of Recourse
  • Summary Judgment
  • Companies Act
  • Prescription
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2008] ZASCA 114

Rand Mutual Assurance Company Ltd. v Rand Accident Fund (484/07)

Rand Mutual Assurance Company Ltd. v Rand Accident Fund (484/07) [2008] ZASCA 114; 2008 (6) SA 511 (SCA) ; [2009] 1 All SA 265 (SCA) (25 September 2008)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
484/07
Judges
Harms, Scott, Jafta, Leach, Kgomo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the procedural requirement for an insurer to sue in the name of the insured is not a substantive rule of South African law and does not serve a public interest in modern times. The court found that section 36(1)(b) of COIDA does not expressly include mutual associations, but the insured employer, having been indemnified, is entitled to recover from the third party, and the insurer may exercise the right of recourse either by cession or by bringing a subrogated claim. The court determined that the appellant was not non-suited by litigating in its own name,…

Source excerpt

  • Insurance Subrogation
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries
  • Right Of Recourse
  • Locus Standi
  • Procedural Formalism
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.