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
Outdoor Illumination (Pty) Ltd v Munwap Cafe (Pty) Ltd (2024-124949) [2025] ZAGPPHC 148 (18 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed a winding-up application because a section 345 demand was sent by registered mail, with no proof it was left at the registered office.
Sandbaken Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (053180/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 54 (21 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed Sandbaken Boerdery’s diesel refund appeal, finding its invoices and logbooks did not meet the Customs Act’s strict rebate requirements.
Tholo Energy Services CC v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (378/2023) [2024] ZASCA 120; [2024] 4 All SA 89 (SCA); 87 SATC 301 (6 August 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirements for a refund of fuel and Road Accident Fund levies under the Customs and Excise Act. The fuel was not obtained from stocks of the licensee of a customs and excise manufacturing warehouse as required by s 64F(1)(b), but rather from unlicensed depots. The appellant did not provide the necessary invoice from the licensee of a VM, nor did it demonstrate that the fuel was wholly and directly removed for delivery to Lesotho by a licensed distributor. Furthermore, the appellant exported the fuel with…
Source excerpt
Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited v Buck and Others (2035/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 284 (7 March 2024)
The court found that both written demands under the performance guarantee were compliant with clause 3.1, as the payment certificates were issued on 15 May 2019 and 28 May 2019, and the demands were made after the amounts became due. The respondents' reliance on incorrect dates and the Denel judgment was misplaced, as the beneficiary met the conditions specified in the guarantee. Probuild had given written consent and undertook full responsibility for the guarantee, including indemnifying the applicant. The court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of succ…
Source excerpt
AfriRent (Pty) Ltd v Rand West City Local Municipality and Another (2023-052811) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1430 (11 December 2023)
The court held that Rand West City Local Municipality acted rationally in refusing to award the tender to Afrirent due to its failure to provide a statement of tax liability, as requested. Fleet Horizon Solutions (Pty) Ltd was not legally required to submit audited financial statements, and therefore, its bid was lawfully accepted despite its initial representation. The post-award condition required only negotiation to decrease the price, not an actual reduction, and evidence of such negotiation was present. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusio…
Source excerpt
Millenium Aluminium and Glass Services CC and Others v Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (693/2021) [2022] ZASCA 180 (14 December 2022)
The court held that a construction guarantee was properly called up and dismissed the appeal, finding the demand complied with the guarantee’s terms.
Sena Trucking CC v Pangourne Properties Limited and Others (38538/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 781 (24 August 2016)
The High Court dismissed an application challenging payment under a demand guarantee, finding no applicant right, no proved prejudice, and alternative remedies available.
Grinaker LTA Rail Link Joint Venture v Absa Insurance Company Limited and Others (24110/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 302 (10 November 2015)
The High Court held that an on-demand construction guarantee required strict compliance, and dismissed the application because the certificate did not meet its terms.
University of the Western Cape v Absa Insurance Company Ltd (100/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 303 (28 October 2015)
The court held that the demand for payment under the construction guarantee was validly made by the principal agent acting on behalf of the applicant, as the guarantee did not require personal performance by the employer nor did it exclude representation. The evidence established that the contractor had failed to achieve works completion, justifying the cancellation of the contract and the call on the guarantee. The respondent's defence of impropriety failed, as there was no evidence of fraud, and disputes regarding the lawfulness of cancellation were irrelevant to the guarantor's obligation…
Source excerpt
Group Five Construction (Pty) Limited and others v Member of the Executive Council for Public Transport Roads And Works Gauteng and Others (2009/31971) [2015] ZAGPJHC 55; [2015] 2 All SA 716 (GJ) ; 2015 (5) SA 26 (GJ) (13 February 2015)
The court found that the second demand did not comply with the guarantee's requirements, as no written notice of cancellation was attached and the summons did not constitute such notice. The guarantee required a clear, unequivocal written notice of cancellation due to contractor default, which was absent. The evidence showed that the contract had not been cancelled for default but had merely expired, and contemporaneous documents confirmed this. The demand was therefore fraudulent, as it misrepresented the grounds for cancellation. The guarantee was held to be extinguished and unenforceable,…
Source excerpt
Explore more
