South Africa Case Law

Slim B and D Construction (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (105847/2024)

Slim B and D Construction (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (105847/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 780 (4 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

105847/2024

Judge

MP Kumalo

The court held that the respondent was bound by its settlement offer and ordered transfer of the equipment to the applicant, rejecting the unilateral mistake defence.

• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Unilateral Mistake
• Ownership Transfer
• Settlement Agreement
• Unilateral-mistake
• Settlement-agreements

Ruth Eunice Sechoaro v Patience Kgwadi (896/2021)

Ruth Eunice Sechoaro v Patience Kgwadi (896/2021) [2023] ZASCA 46; 2023 (5) SA 420 (SCA) (4 April 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

896/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Schippers, Nicholls, Kathree-Setiloane, Siwendu

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent's unilateral mistake in signing the 2012 agreement was reasonable and excusable. The respondent was hospitalized, sedated, and in pain when presented with the agreement, which was inconsistent with the prior verbal arrangement regarding the division of property. The applicant failed to provide evidence that the respondent intended to forfeit her share or that the nature and importance of the agreement were explained to her. The court held that Mr Kgwadi, knowing the respondent's condition and the prior agreement, deliberately presented the…

Source excerpt

• Unilateral Mistake
• Contract Enforceability
• Division Of Property
• Variation Of Settlement Agreement

M M v Road Accident Fund (25/11/2019)

M M v Road Accident Fund (25/11/2019) [2019] ZAMPMBHC 11; Roelofse AJ (4 December 2019)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

718/2016

Judge

Roelofse

The High Court held that the Road Accident Fund could not resile from a compromise on liability because its mistake was negligent, not a justus error.

• Compromise And Settlement
• Prescription
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Legal Disability
• Unilateral Mistake
• Compromise-and-settlement

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC (JS257/15)

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC (JS257/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 170 (8 May 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS257/15

Judge

M C Mamosebo

The Labour Court held that Eskom was bound by salary-adjustment letters issued on 10 May 2012 and rejected its unilateral-mistake defence.

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Unilateral Mistake
• Salary Adjustment
• Acceptance Of Offer
• Breach-of-employment-contract
• Unilateral-mistake

Legoete v Mercedes Benz Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd (15666/2014)

Legoete v Mercedes Benz Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd (15666/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1193 (8 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15666/2014

Judge

JFD Brand

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a contract dispute over a mistaken settlement quotation and liability for an outstanding vehicle finance balance.

• Contract Voidness
• Unilateral Mistake
• Iustus Error
• Settlement Agreement
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Unilateral-mistake

Absa Bank Limited v Dennison and Others (2152/2011)

Absa Bank Limited v Dennison and Others (2152/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 637 (29 July 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2152/2011

Judge

T.D. Vilakazi

The court found that ABSA's omission to factor in the outstanding levies due to its clerk's failure to provide the information constituted a reasonable and material mistake. Applying the principles of unilateral mistake, the court held that ABSA had not led the other parties to reasonably believe it was binding itself to the contract under the mistaken terms. The conditions of sale and related correspondence did not create a stipulatio alteri enforceable by Pecanwood, as the validity of such benefit depended on the validity of the sale, which was set aside. The counter-application for specifi…

Source excerpt

• Sale In Execution
• Unilateral Mistake
• Stipulatio Alteri
• Specific Performance
• Default Judgment

Botha v Road Accident Fund (463/2015)

Botha v Road Accident Fund (463/2015) [2016] ZASCA 97; 2017 (2) SA 50 (SCA) (2 June 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

463/2015

Judges

Leach, Saldulker, Dambuza, Fourie, Victor

The court held that the mistake regarding the amount of past hospital and medical expenses was unilateral, caused by the appellant's attorney's misrepresentation, and not a common mistake shared by both parties. The respondent reasonably relied on the facts presented during settlement negotiations. The agreement was valid and binding, having been made an order of court. The appellant cannot rely on his own error to avoid the contract, and Uniform rule 42(1)(c) does not permit rescission in these circumstances. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Settlement Agreement
• Unilateral Mistake
• Misrepresentation
• Rule 42 Application

Paarl Web Gauteng (Pty) Ltd v Reegans Freight CC (37661/2009)

Paarl Web Gauteng (Pty) Ltd v Reegans Freight CC (37661/2009) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1145 (7 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37661/2009

Judge

Makgoka

The court held that Reegans Freight CC was bound by the credit agreement and liable for printing charges, despite claims of mistake, lack of authority, and a credit-limit defence.

• Contract Formation
• Unilateral Mistake
• Authority Of Members
• Credit Facilities
• Suretyship
• Estoppel

Parys Development Properties (Pty) Ltd v Metzer and Another (A208/14, 26097/11)

Parys Development Properties (Pty) Ltd v Metzer and Another (A208/14, 26097/11) [2015] ZAWCHC 199 (3 December 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A208/14, 26097/11

Judges

Nuku, Goliath

The court found that the respondent signed the agreement of suretyship under a material mistake, believing she was signing a lease agreement. Although her signature constituted a misrepresentation to the appellant, the appellant, having drafted the documents and being aware of the respondent's lack of involvement in negotiations, had a duty to alert her to the nature of the document. The appellant's reliance on the respondent's signature as an intention to be bound was unreasonable. The court held that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would not have been misled. Furthermore, th…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Condonation
• Unilateral Mistake
• Iustus Error
• Rule 50 Non Compliance
• Rule 51 Non Compliance

Kruuse v Hillhouse (83/2015)

Kruuse v Hillhouse (83/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 96 (7 July 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

83/2015

Judge

Plasket

Leave to appeal against summary judgment was dismissed. The court held that no bona fide defence was properly disclosed and the NCA registration argument failed.

• Summary Judgment
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• National Credit Act
• Unilateral Mistake
• Partnership Defence
• Summary-judgment