South Africa Case Law

Van Louw and Others v Land Bank and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa t/a Land Bank (14287/2014)

Van Louw and Others v Land Bank and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa t/a Land Bank (14287/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 44 (14 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14287/2014

Judges

Le Grange, Wille, Sher

The High Court dismissed sureties’ appeal, holding they failed to prove prejudicial conduct by Land Bank or any breached legal duty. A waiver clause also barred the defence.

• Suretyship Liability
• Prejudice To Surety
• Waiver Of Defence
• Contractual Interpretation
• Suretyship-liability
• Prejudice-to-surety

Groep v Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty) Ltd; Groep v W J Da Grass Attorneys (5338/2007; 2417/2011)

Groep v Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty) Ltd; Groep v W J Da Grass Attorneys (5338/2007; 2417/2011) [2017] ZAWCHC 128; [2018] 1 All SA 508 (WCC); 2018 (5) SA 248 (WCC) (15 November 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5338/2007; 2417/2011

Judge

Gamble

The court found that the letter of 26 June 2008 from Deneys Reitz Attorneys, which stated that Golden Arrow no longer intended to persist with its special plea of prescription, was sent as part of ongoing settlement negotiations and was marked 'without prejudice'. As such, it is privileged and inadmissible in evidence. The court held that the concession regarding prescription formed the basis of settlement discussions and was not disconnected from the negotiations. Therefore, the letter cannot be used to prove waiver of the prescription defence. The court declined to address the issues of aut…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Professional Negligence
• Without Prejudice Communications
• Waiver Of Defence
• Estoppel

Eskom Holdings Limited v Transdeco GTMH (Pty) Ltd and Another (16364/2013)

Eskom Holdings Limited v Transdeco GTMH (Pty) Ltd and Another (16364/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 89 (7 March 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16364/2013

Judge

M Mbongwe

The court held that the applicant had not abandoned its claim against the first respondent, as its continued pursuit of the claim in arbitration and the liquidators' involvement indicated ongoing intent. The statutory framework of section 359(2)(b) provides a remedy for parties who failed to give timeous notice, and the liquidators cannot waive the defence under section 359(2)(a). The right to bring this application is not a debt and is not subject to prescription. The first respondent's opposition was found to be vexatious, given its knowledge of the applicant's claim and its flawed reliance…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act 1973 Section 359
• Liquidation Procedure
• Arbitration Pending Liquidation
• Waiver Of Defence
• Prescription Act Application