South Africa Case Law

Profit Hub (Pty) Ltd v Zuwon Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024-096735)

Profit Hub (Pty) Ltd v Zuwon Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Another (2024-096735) [2025] ZAGPPHC 244 (3 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-096735

Judge

Swanepoel

The court held that, although previous cases distinguished discounting agreements from credit agreements, the substance of the present agreement was that the applicant advanced money to the first respondent, deferred repayment, and charged a factoring fee and penalty interest. The applicant's profit derived from these fees, not from the surplus of the claim. The rights in the invoices were ceded as security for repayment, and the balance after repayment accrued to the first respondent. This arrangement fits squarely within the definition of a credit facility under section 8(3) of the National…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Credit Agreement Definition
• Invoice Discounting
• Surety Liability

Mcmurray and Others v Heat Pump International (Pty) Ltd and Others (18501/2022)

Mcmurray and Others v Heat Pump International (Pty) Ltd and Others (18501/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 123 (26 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18501/2022

Judge

Mantame

The court dismissed a trust’s declaratory application over auction proceeds, finding the settlement agreement a nullity against a liquidated company and ordering payment to liquidators.

• Landlords Tacit Hypothec
• Settlement Agreement Validity
• Liquidation And Concursus Creditorium
• Surety Liability
• Disposition After Winding Up
• Preferent Creditor Claim

Engen Petroleum Limited v Sing (2019/29582)

Engen Petroleum Limited v Sing (2019/29582) [2021] ZAGPJHC 724 (12 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/29582

Judge

Mkhabela

The High Court confirmed a provisional sequestration order, finding reason to believe final sequestration would benefit creditors under section 12 of the Insolvency Act.

• Insolvency Act Section 12
• Sequestration Advantage To Creditors
• Surety Liability
• Nulla Bona Return
• Insolvency-act-section-12
• Sequestration

Mooirivier Mall (Pty) Ltd v Rowmoor Investments 804 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cape Town Fish Market and Others (A847/2014)

Mooirivier Mall (Pty) Ltd v Rowmoor Investments 804 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cape Town Fish Market and Others (A847/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 139 (4 March 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A847/2014

Judges

H.J Fabricius, M. Ismail

The court found that the written lease agreement was validly cancelled on 13 October 2011 following the termination of the franchise. Thereafter, an oral agreement was reached between the parties, permitting the respondent to continue trading under the 'Fusion' concept until the end of February 2012. The evidence of the appellant's own witnesses confirmed the existence and terms of this oral agreement. The appellant was not entitled to claim rent or holding-over charges after February 2012, as the respondent was locked out and ceased occupation. The sureties' liability did not extend to the o…

Source excerpt

• Lease Cancellation
• Oral Variation Of Contract
• Holding Over
• Surety Liability
• Quantum Separation

Dhlamini v Nedbank Limited and Others (33047/2008)

Dhlamini v Nedbank Limited and Others (33047/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 84 (30 July 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33047/2008

Judge

Van der Byl

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal, finding the notice defective under Rule 49 and holding that no bona fide defence was shown for rescission.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Notice Of Appeal Requirements
• Sale In Execution
• Surety Liability
• Leave-to-appeal

Absa Bank Ltd v Carinus and Others (13358/2006)

Absa Bank Ltd v Carinus and Others (13358/2006) [2007] ZAWCHC 84 (27 March 2007)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13358/2006

Judge

Bozalek

The court found that the summary judgment application and supporting affidavit failed to specify clearly against which respondents summary judgment was sought and which cause of action was relied upon. This ambiguity constitutes non-compliance with Rule 32, which requires strict adherence to procedural requirements due to the far-reaching nature of summary judgment. The court declined to condone the error or interpret the documents liberally to include both respondents. As a result, the applicant was not entitled to summary judgment against either respondent. The issue of costs was left for d…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Compliance With Rule 32
• Overdrawn Bank Account
• Surety Liability