South Africa Case Law

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Limited (2023/028000)

Exxaro Coal Mpumalanga (Pty) Ltd v ABSA Bank Limited (2023/028000) [2025] ZAGPJHC 499 (27 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/028000

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court found that ABSA was entitled to reject Exxaro's first demand, which was defective. However, the second demand was a separate act and required a distinct response. ABSA failed to reject the second demand within five days as required by the URDG, and thus was precluded from relying on any defects in that demand. The guarantee expired on 19 June 2020, and the second demand was made on that day, satisfying the requirement that the demand be received before expiry. The court rejected ABSA's argument that unconscionability was a valid defence, finding no unreasonable or excessive conduct…

Source excerpt

• Demand Guarantee
• Uniform Rules For Demand Guarantees
• Contractual Interpretation
• Issue Estoppel
• Unconscionability

Imvula Roads and Civils (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holland Insurance Co. Ltd and Another (2024-104602)

Imvula Roads and Civils (Pty) Ltd and Others v Holland Insurance Co. Ltd and Another (2024-104602) [2025] ZAGPJHC 12 (14 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024-104602

Judge

Dosio

The court found that the guarantees in question are on-demand guarantees, requiring only a written demand and notice of termination from the beneficiary to trigger payment. The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interdict payment, as they did not prove fraud or unconscionable conduct on the part of the second respondent. The court held that disputes regarding the validity of the contract termination are irrelevant to the guarantor's obligation to pay under an on-demand guarantee. The fraud exception is narrowly construed and was not established on the facts. The court furth…

Source excerpt

• Performance Guarantee
• Interim Interdict
• Fraud Exception
• Unconscionability
• Contract Termination
• Construction Contracts

Consortium Comprising: KC Cottrell Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited and Others (Appeal) (2023/009986)

Consortium Comprising: KC Cottrell Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Santam Limited and Others (Appeal) (2023/009986) [2023] ZAGPJHC 331 (17 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/009986

Judge

S D J Wilson

Leave to appeal was refused in a dispute over a construction demand guarantee. The court held the guarantee could be called on an honest allegation of breach.

• Demand Guarantee
• Interim Interdict
• Fraudulent Call On Guarantee
• Unconscionability
• Construction Contract
• Leave To Appeal

RFC Development (Pty) Ltd v Omeida Trading 420 CC t/a Caffe Rossini The Core and Others (A5012/2018)

RFC Development (Pty) Ltd v Omeida Trading 420 CC t/a Caffe Rossini The Core and Others (A5012/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 459 (18 October 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5012/2018

Judges

EF Dippenaar, C Lamont, L Adams

The appeal succeeded because the admitted facts established the existence and terms of the lease agreement, the period of occupation, and the failure of the first respondent to pay the agreed rentals. The respondents did not provide evidence to challenge the quantum of the claim or the payments made. The certificate relied upon by the appellant was not a certificate as envisaged by the suretyship, but the quantum could be calculated mathematically from the admitted facts. The court a quo materially misdirected itself in granting absolution from the instance. The cross appeal failed as the lea…

Source excerpt

• Commercial Lease
• Quantification Of Claim
• Suretyship Certificate
• Public Policy Contracts
• Unconscionability
• Costs Award

Trustees for the time being of Oregon Trust v BEADICA 231 CC and Others (74/2018)

Trustees for the time being of Oregon Trust v BEADICA 231 CC and Others (74/2018) [2019] ZASCA 29; 2019 (4) SA 517 (SCA) (28 March 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

74/2018

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Saldulker, Mbha, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the lessees failed to exercise their options to renew the leases in accordance with the contractual requirements, and the leases terminated by effluxion of time. The court found no public policy considerations or unconscionability that would justify overriding the clear terms of the lease agreements. The principle of pacta servanda sunt remains central to contract law, and courts must exercise caution in refusing to enforce contracts except in the clearest cases of public policy violation. The High Court erred in making new contracts for the parties and d…

Source excerpt

• Lease Renewal Clauses
• Public Policy In Contract
• Pacta Servanda Sunt
• Unconscionability
• Black Economic Empowerment
• Franchise Agreements