Man Truck & Bus (SA) (Pty) Limited v Dorbyl Limited t/a Dorbyl Transport Products and Busaf

Africa Truck & Bus (Pty) Ltd (ATB), whose rights later devolved on the appellant, leased 12 buses to Dusbus Leasing CC under a long-term lease and undertook to maintain the buses under a separate maintenance agreement. ATB had purchased the bus bodies from a division of the respondent. Because of ATB’s financial exposure under the lease, ATB and the respondent concluded a ‘risk sharing agreement’. Under clause 4 ATB undertook to maintain the buses in accordance with the maintenance agreement, and under clause 5 the respondent undertook to pay a guaranteed amount if the buses were repossessed following Dusbus’s default. Dusbus defaulted, the buses were repossessed, and the appellant claimed payment of the guaranteed amount (over R1,4 million). The appellant instituted motion proceedings and succeeded at first instance. On appeal, the full court set the order aside and referred the matter for oral evidence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the obligations were reciprocal and held that the referral to oral evidence by the full court was not appealable.

The case is significant for clarifying the interpretation of reciprocity of obligations in South African contract law, reaffirming that reciprocity depends on the intention of the parties assessed in light of the contract and commercial context. It also confirms that interlocutory procedural decisions, such as referrals to oral evidence, are not appealable, reinforcing principles governing appellate jurisdiction.