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
Jayed Products and Services CC v Tarsus Distribution (Pty) Ltd (40974/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 306 (28 June 2019)
The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim, finding the pleading vague and embarrassing and granting leave to amend.
Business Partners Limited v Africa Unlimited Safaris and Others (985 / 08) [2017] ZANCHC 71 (19 June 2017)
High Court judgment on surety liability and disputed indebtedness under loan and royalty agreements. The court rejected a reciprocity defence and granted judgment for the plaintiff.
Robertson N.O. and Others v Business Partner Ltd; In re: Business Partner Ltd v Robertson N.O. and Others (2198/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 199 (29 October 2015)
The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default, as the summons was not properly served at their premises and they only became aware of the judgment after an attempted execution. The applicants raised a bona fide defence by contending that the royalty agreement was a simulated transaction and contra bonis mores, which, if proven at trial, could render the agreement unenforceable. The court held that such issues require a full enquiry and credibility findings, which cannot be resolved in motion proceedings. Therefore, the applicants demons…
Source excerpt
Business Partners v NT Makhubela Enterprise CC and Others (48567/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1046 (20 August 2015)
The High Court granted summary judgment to Business Partners, rejecting the defendants’ challenges to a loan, royalty agreement, and suretyship signatures.
Business Partners Limited v Silverstars Trading 245 CC (A762/2012, 14408/2008) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1108 (29 May 2015)
The appeal court found that the royalty agreement, although functioning as additional interest, was not simulated, nor was it contrary to public policy or unenforceable. The respondents entered into the agreement with full knowledge of its terms and rationale, were not coerced, and had alternative financing options. The interest rate, whether calculated at 18.45% or 28.6%, was not per se usurious under common law, as there was no evidence of extortion, oppression, or fraud. The appellant was entitled to structure the transaction outside the Usury Act's limits, and the respondents failed to pr…
Source excerpt
Explore more
