South Africa Case Law

Klopper N.O and Others v Marais and Another (4786/2019)

Klopper N.O and Others v Marais and Another (4786/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 65 (6 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4786/2019

Judge

M E Mahlangu

The court found that the plaintiffs proved on a balance of probabilities that rectification of the contract was warranted due to a mutual error. The first defendant breached the second Deed of Sale agreement by failing to pay the required deposits and fulfil contractual obligations, resulting in cancellation of the agreement. The second defendant, having undertaken to fulfil the first defendant's obligations in the event of default, was held jointly liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. The damages were calculated as the difference between the agreed purchase price and the amount…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Contract
• Rectification
• Damages
• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Undertaking Enforcement

Meyerdicks v Road Accident Fund (3526/2014)

Meyerdicks v Road Accident Fund (3526/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 418 (4 June 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3526/2014

Judge

Dewrance

The court held that the Administration of Estates Act did not govern a trustee’s claim for Road Accident Fund-related trust costs and ordered payment.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Trust Property Control Act
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Quantum Of Costs
• Undertaking Enforcement
• Road-accident-fund

Strydom v Nick Breytenbach Incorporated (A637/2011)

Strydom v Nick Breytenbach Incorporated (A637/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 537 (13 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A637/2011

Judges

Preller, Louw AA, Twala J

The court found that the order of the Magistrates Court on locus standi was final and appealable. On the merits, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her entitlement to enforce the undertaking, as the agreed facts did not establish that she was the beneficiary of the payment or had any right to claim it from the defendant. The undertaking was made in favour of the conveyancing attorneys for the seller, and only the seller or his agent could enforce it. The plaintiff bore the onus to prove her entitlement but failed to do so. Accordingly, the proper order was absolution from the i…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Undertaking Enforcement
• Absolution From Instance

Ramsamy v Nonxuba (5008/07)

Ramsamy v Nonxuba (5008/07) [2008] ZAFSHC 6 (14 February 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5008/07

Judge

C.J. Musi

The court found that by removing the summary judgment application from the roll and expressly informing the defendant that the main action would proceed, the plaintiff acknowledged the defendant's right to defend and thereby abandoned his right to apply for summary judgment. The defendant's subsequent conduct, including filing a plea, was consistent with this acknowledgment. The court further held that the plaintiff's taxed bill of costs was not a liquid document and did not need to be attached to the application. The interpretation of the written undertaking and whether the claim had arisen…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Undertaking Enforcement
• Liquid Document
• Costs Order