Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Banking And Finance [2025] ZAGPJHC 499

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
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2020] ZAGPJHC 445

TDS Projects Construction and Newrak Mining JV (PTY) Ltd vs EXXARO Coal Mpumalanga (Pty)Ltd and Another (2020/14298)

TDS Projects Construction and Newrak Mining JV (PTY) Ltd vs EXXARO Coal Mpumalanga (Pty)Ltd and Another (2020/14298) [2020] ZAGPJHC 445 (16 November 2020)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2020/14298
Judge
CG Lamont

The court found that both demands made by the first respondent failed to comply with the express requirements of the guarantee and the URDG. The demands did not specify in what respect the applicant was in breach, did not warrant the authority of the signatory, and did not state that the amounts claimed were due and payable. The second respondent, as guarantor, was obliged to scrutinise the demands and act only if the terms were complied with. The applicant, despite not being a party to the guarantee contract, had locus standi to challenge the compliance of the demand due to its financial int…

Source excerpt

  • Performance Guarantee
  • Demand Guarantee Compliance
  • Interdictory Relief
  • Counterclaim Arbitration
  • Uniform Rules For Demand Guarantees
  • Locus Standi
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.