CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Capitec Bank Holdings Limited and Another v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others

Citation(470/2020) [2021] ZASCA 99 (09 July 2021)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Contract LawCommercial Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Interpretation of Contracts
Good Faith in Contracts
Parol Evidence Rule

Facts of the Case

In December 2006, Capitec Bank Holdings Limited (Capitec Holdings), Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd (Coral) and Ash Brook Investments 16 (Pty) Ltd (Ash Brook) concluded a subscription of shares and shareholders agreement (the subscription agreement) to enable Capitec Holdings to increase its black shareholding for BEE compliance. Pursuant to this, Coral subscribed for 10 million ordinary shares in Capitec Holdings. In August 2019, Regiments Capital (which held 59.82% interest in Ash Brook) entered into a settlement agreement with the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund to settle fraud claims. The settlement required the sale of 810,230 Capitec Holdings shares (the sale shares), with proceeds to settle the Fund's claims. The settlement agreement stipulated as a suspensive condition that "the Capitec Consent having been duly obtained". Coral sought Capitec Holdings' consent to dispose of the sale shares to the Fund. Capitec Holdings did not give consent. Coral and Ash Brook brought an urgent application seeking a declarator that Capitec Holdings' withholding of consent was unreasonable and in breach of good faith duties, and seeking a mandatory order directing Capitec Holdings to give consent. The Fund also brought a counter-application asserting that no consent was required under the subscription agreement.

Legal Issues

  • Does clause 8.3 of the subscription agreement require Capitec Holdings' consent before Coral can sell its shares in Capitec Holdings?
  • What is the correct approach to interpreting the subscription agreement and clause 8.3 in particular?
  • What is the relevance and admissibility of the parties' past conduct in implementing the agreement for purposes of interpretation?
  • What is the scope and application of the parol evidence rule in relation to extrinsic evidence of context and purpose?
  • Does good faith in South African contract law constitute an independent, free-standing source of contractual obligations?
  • Can a court order a party to give consent that is not required by a properly interpreted contract on the basis of good faith or fairness?
  • Is the appeal moot given subsequent transactions and developments after the high court judgment?

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. Paragraphs 4-8 of the high court order were set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application under case number 30899/2019 and ordering the applicants (Coral and Ash Brook) and the first and second intervening parties (Rorisang and Lemoshanang) to pay the costs of the first and second respondents (Capitec Holdings and Capitec Bank), including costs of two counsel where employed.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Where the plain language of a contract, understood in its textual and structural context, does not require consent for a particular action, a court cannot import such a requirement based on the parties' past conduct or on principles of good faith or fairness. (2) Good faith in South African contract law is not an independent, free-standing source of contractual obligations that can be used to alter, add to or vary the terms parties have agreed to; rather, good faith is an underlying principle that informs the substantive rules of contract law. (3) Courts cannot use good faith, justice or fairness as abstract principles to impose contractual duties that the parties did not agree to or to decline to enforce bargains freely entered into. (4) While extrinsic evidence of the parties' post-contractual conduct may be admissible as relevant to context for purposes of interpretation (following University of Johannesburg), such evidence must be weighed and cannot displace the clear meaning derived from the text, structure and purpose of the agreement where that evidence is equivocal. (5) The parol evidence rule, while somewhat residual in its operation under the current approach to interpretation, still operates to exclude evidence that contradicts, adds to or varies a written contract once the meaning of that contract has been properly determined through consideration of text, context and purpose. (6) The interpretation of contracts must commence with the text and its structure - context and purpose are used to elucidate the text, not to import meanings unmoored from the text. (7) Where parties have structured their agreement to differentiate the treatment of different categories of persons (e.g. by imposing prohibitions on some but merely consequences on others), courts should respect those distinctions in interpretation.

Obiter Dicta

The Court made several important non-binding observations: (1) The practical consequence of the Constitutional Court's approach to interpretation in University of Johannesburg is that the parol evidence rule is likely to become largely residual, doing little more than identifying the written agreement whose meaning must be determined, because evidence claimed to contradict the agreement can be recharacterized as relevant to context. (2) Limits on admissible extrinsic evidence should include continued aversion to evidence of parties' prior negotiations and subjective intentions (outside rectification cases) and what witnesses consider a contract to mean - that remains a matter for the court. (3) The proposition that "context is everything" from Endumeni should not be used as a license to contend for meanings unmoored in the text and structure - it does not evidence skepticism that words and terms have meaning, but rather recognizes that words are understood in relation to context and purpose. (4) Endumeni has become a "ritualized incantation" often used to pursue "undisciplined and self-serving interpretations" - this is not what the case intended. (5) Most commercial contracts are constructed with a design in mind, and their architects choose words to give effect to that design - the text and structure have a "gravitational pull" that is important and should not be disregarded. (6) The relationship between the expansive approach to interpretation and the parol evidence rule poses challenges that continue to trouble courts drawing on the common law tradition. (7) A via media approach (admitting extrinsic evidence only if the contract is reasonably susceptible of the meaning for which evidence is tendered) may have merit but was not adopted given University of Johannesburg. (8) That a contract could be more ethically preferable or better for society does not permit judicial interpretation to make it so.

Legal Significance

This case is of considerable importance for South African contract law for several reasons: (1) It provides important clarification on the interaction between the expansive approach to interpretation established in Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality and the parol evidence rule, particularly in light of University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary. (2) It authoritatively applies the Constitutional Court's decision in Beadica 231 CC v Trustees, Oregon Trust regarding the proper role of good faith in contract law, confirming that good faith is not a free-standing source of contractual obligations but rather a principle that informs substantive rules. (3) It emphasizes that courts cannot use concepts of good faith, fairness or justice to rewrite contracts or impose obligations parties did not agree to, reaffirming the centrality of freedom of contract. (4) It provides guidance on the admissibility and weight to be given to extrinsic evidence of the parties' post-contractual conduct in interpreting contracts. (5) It demonstrates the proper methodology for contractual interpretation, starting with the text and structure of the agreement, and warns against undisciplined interpretation that is unmoored from the text. (6) It clarifies that the plain meaning of clear contractual language should not be displaced without compelling contextual reasons, despite the unitary approach to interpretation.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 70 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Others[2020] ZACC 13
    Applies

    The court applies the Constitutional Court's authoritative interpretation of the role of good faith in the law of contract, affirming that good faith is not a…

  • Comwezi Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Cape Empowerment Trust Limited[2012] ZASCA 126 (21 September 2012)
    Considers

    The court considers Comwezi for the principle that even in the absence of ambiguity, the conduct of parties in implementing an agreement may provide evidence…

  • Ferrostaal GmbH and Another v Transnet SOC Ltd t/a Transnet National Ports Authority and Another(1194/2019) [2021] ZASCA 62
    Appeal From

    The Supreme Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal after Vally J refused it. The SCA upheld the appeal with costs, finding that the subscription agreement,…

  • KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Limited and Another(644/07) [2009] ZASCA 7 (13 March 2009)
    Cites

Cited By 62 Cases

  • ABSA Bank Limited v Marc Christopher Rosenberg and Terrence Rosenberg(1255/2022) [2024] ZASCA 58 (24 April 2024)
    Applies

    Applied to underscore that commercial contracts have a design and interpretation begins with the text, which has a gravitational pull, and context and purpose…

  • Afriforum NPC v The Premier, Gauteng Province and Others(1000/2020) [2021] ZASCA 185 (24 December 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the court's discretion to entertain the merits of an appeal, even where the matter is moot, where a case poses a legal issue of importance for the…

  • Aveng Mining Shafts & Underground v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(1192/2023) [2025] ZASCA 20 (17 March 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that context and purpose may be used to elucidate the text but cannot displace the ordinary meaning of the express wording of a…

  • Baseline Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(893/2024) [2026] ZASCA 20 (24 February 2026)
    Applies

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Cited as affirming the parol evidence rule that, save in exceptional circumstances such as fraud or duress, where parties have reduced their agreement to a…

  • Qoboshiyane NO v Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd(864/2011) [2012] ZASCA 166 (21 November 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the court has a discretion to entertain the merits of an appeal even where the matter is moot, particularly where a case poses a…

  • The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Blair Atholl Homeowners Association(106/2018) [2018] ZASCA 176 (3 December 2018)
    Cites

    Cited as affirming the parol evidence or integration rule and warning of the laxity with which some courts have permitted evidence of what a witness considers…

  • University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary and Another[2021] ZACC 13
    Applies

    The court applies the Constitutional Court's clarification of the expansive approach to admissibility of extrinsic evidence of context and purpose for…

  • Willie Aaron Sibiya and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division) and OthersCCT 45/04
    Applies

    The court applies the unitary approach to contractual interpretation articulated in Endumeni, emphasising that interpretation is based on text, context, and…

  • Court applies the interpretive principle endorsed in this case regarding text, context and purpose in statutory interpretation.

  • Brian Garth Batteson N O and Others v Deborah Joubert N O and Another(42/2024) [2025] ZASCA 129 (11 September 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the ordinary principles of interpretation must be applied in a coherent, not mechanical, fashion.

  • Chairperson, Eastern Cape Gambling and Betting Board and Another v Vukani Gaming Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd and Others(1338/2019; 1366/2019; 119/2020) [2021] ZASCA 180
    Applies

    The court applies the approach from Capitec that the triad of text, context, and purpose should not be used mechanically but relationally to determine coherent…

  • Chapman's Bay Estate Home Owners' Association v Lötter and Others(525/2023) [2024] ZASCA 153 (12 November 2024)
    Follows

    The Court cites Capitec to emphasise that the triad of text, context and purpose should not be used mechanically, and that the inevitable starting point is the…

  • Christoffel Hendrik Wiese and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(1307/2022) [2024] ZASCA 111
    Applies

    The court applied the Capitec Bank interpretation approach focussing on the purpose, language and context of a provision.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Copperleaf Country Estate (Pty) Ltd and Another(245/2023) [2024] ZASCA 69 (3 May 2024)
    Applies

    Court applied the triad of language, context, and purpose as the approach to interpreting the definition of 'registered in a township title' in the rates…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Brooklyn Edge (Pty) Ltd and Another(928/2020) [2022] ZASCA 23
    Cites

    Cited for the principle regarding the admissibility of evidence of preceding negotiations in light of the integration rule.

  • Close-Up Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Arbitrator, Judge Phillip Boruchowitz and Another(286/2022) [2023] ZASCA 43 (31 March 2023)
    Applies

    Applied for the established triad of text, context and purpose when interpreting agreements including the arbitration agreement and AFSA rules.

  • Cohen v Absa Bank Limited(1280/2021) [2024] ZASCA 16 (9 February 2024)
    Applies

    Applied the established triad of language, context and purpose for statutory interpretation.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others v Dragon Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others(751/21) [2022] ZASCA 84
    Cites

    Court cites for the principle that interpretation is a unitary exercise involving text, context and purpose, not a mechanical application of a triad.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Diageo SA (Pty) Ltd(1063/2023) [2024] ZASCA 158 (15 November 2024)
    Cites

    Court cites Capitec Bank for the principle that interpretation, while a unitary exercise of text, context and purpose, should not be mechanical and requires…

  • Competition Commission of South Africa v Irwin & JohnsonCAC CASE NO: 188/CAC/SEP20 and 196/CAC/NOV21
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that interpretation involves consideration of the relationship between words used, concepts expressed and the place of the…

  • Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Capitec Bank Holdings Limited(887/2021) [2022] ZASCA 144 (24 October 2022)
    Cites

    This SCA decision affirmed Capitec's understanding that clause 8.3 of the subscription agreement was concerned with the consequences of Coral selling CPI…

  • Democratic Alliance and Another v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Others[2024] ZAEC 06 (26 April 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the triad of text, context and purpose should not be used in a mechanical fashion and it is the relationship between the words,…

  • Director of Public Prosecutions Eastern Cape, Makhanda v Loyiso Coko(Case No: 248/2022) [2024] ZASCA 59 (24 April 2024)
    Cites

    Cited by Unterhalter AJA for the proposition that interpretation is a unitary exercise involving text, context and purpose, not a mechanical process.

  • Electoral Commission of South Africa and Another v Speaker of the uMhlathuze Local Council and Others(10/2022 EC) [2022] ZAEC 11 (1 December 2022)
    Applies

    Applied to endorse and develop the Endumeni approach to statutory interpretation, emphasising the relationship between text, context, and purpose.

  • Els v Venter and Another(449/2024) [2025] ZASCA 163
    Cites

    Cited to affirm the approach to statutory interpretation: interpretation begins with the text and its structure, and context and purpose may be used to…

  • Emontic Investments (Pty) Ltd v Bothomley NO and Others(1123/2022) [2024] ZASCA 1 (9 January 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the well-established trinity of language, context and purpose in the interpretative analysis of statutory provisions.

  • Ezulwini Mining Company (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others(289/2021) [2023] ZASCA 80 (30 May 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the essence of the unitary exercise of interpretation being the relationship between the words used, the concepts expressed, and the place of the…

  • Goodyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition CommissionCase no: 269/CAC/Mar25
    Follows

    Followed for the principle of unified statutory interpretation involving text, context, and purpose.

  • G Phadziri & Sons (Pty) Ltd v Do Light Transport (Pty) Ltd and Another(765/2021) [2023] ZASCA 16 (20 February 2023)
    Applies

    Applied to caution that evidence of subsequent conduct must not be harvested indiscriminately, but must be relevant to an objective determination of the…

  • Haralambos Prokas N O and Others v Zoviflo (Pty) Ltd(61/2024) [2025] ZASCA 18 (13 March 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that interpretation begins with the text and its structure, that context is crucial, and that extraneous contextual factors can be used…

  • Hassody Katha v Primathie Pillay N.O. and Others(276/2024) [2025] ZASCA 106 (18 July 2025)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that meaning is understood by understanding words in their larger structural, contextual and purposive context, not by partial…

  • Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others v East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Others(945/2022) [2024] ZASCA 114 (22 July 2024)
    Cites

    Cited to explain that the triad of text, context and purpose in statutory interpretation should be used in a nuanced, not mechanical, fashion.

  • Inzalo Enterprise Management Systems (Pty) Ltd v Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality(102/2024) [2025] ZASCA 85 (11 June 2025)
    Cites

    The court cites this case in support of the proposition that the interpretation of the Master Agreement is likely to benefit from the ventilation of relevant…

  • Johanna Gertruida Cloete v Gerrit Antonie CloeteCase No. CA 139/2023 (Eastern Cape Division, Makhanda)
    Applies

    Applied for the caution against using Endumeni principles as an open-ended permission for undisciplined interpretations and emphasizing that interpretation…

  • Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund v Guilherme(702/2022) [2023] ZASCA 96 (13 June 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of unitary interpretation involving text, context, and purpose.

  • Limpopo Economic Development Agency v Klopper NO and Others(982/2020) [2022] ZASCA 73
    Applies

    Court applies the interpretational principles regarding context and meaning, confirming the approach when context suggests appropriate meaning of language.

  • Lötter N O and Others v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others(725/2020) [2021] ZASCA 159 (8 November 2021)
    Applies

    Applied to emphasize that the triad of text, context and purpose should not be used mechanically, and that the inevitable point of departure is the language of…

  • Macingwane v Masekwameng and Others(626/2021) [2022] ZASCA 174 (7 December 2022)
    Applies

    The Court applies the endorsement and elaboration of the Endumeni interpretative principles in Capitec, emphasising the relationship between words, concepts…

  • Madidimalo Kislon Mamadi and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others[2022] ZACC 26
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that rules should be construed purposively.

  • Malakite Body Corporate and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another(832/2024) [2025] ZASCA 192 (15 December 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the general principles of interpretation, including that wording of statutory provisions is vital in the process of interpretation.

  • Maria Luisa Palma Codevilla v Paula Jane Kennedy-Smith NO and Others(494/2023) [2024] ZASCA 136
    Cites

    Cited for the unitary approach to interpretation of valid contracts as enunciated in Endumeni.

  • Masinga and Others v Chief of the South African National Defence Force and Others(51/2021) [2022] ZASCA 1 (05 January 2022)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that interpretation begins with the text and its structure, which have a gravitational pull, and context and purpose may be used to…

  • Mbambisa and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality(272/2023) [2024] ZASCA 151 (8 November 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that interpretation of statutory provisions and contracts should focus on the relationship between words used, the concept expressed,…

  • Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Another v British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others(309/21) [2022] ZASCA 89
    Applies

    Applied at para 84 for the principle that statutory interpretation is a unitary exercise considering text, context and purpose, and the relationship between…

  • Moipone Moroka v Premier of the Free State Province and Others(295/2020) [2022] ZASCA 34 (31 March 2022)
    Cites

    Court cites this case which affirms that the Constitutional Court has rejected the idea of the plain meaning of text and its primacy, since words without…

  • Ndiviwe Dukiso v King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (K.S.D) and OthersCase No. 2056/2022 (Eastern Cape Local Division – Mthatha)
    Applies

    The court applies the principles on contractual interpretation, emphasizing the relationship between words used, concepts expressed and the place of the…

  • Nedbank Limited v Houtbosplaas (Pty) Ltd and Another(164/2021) [2022] ZASCA 69
    Cites

    Cited to describe the triad of text, context, and purpose in interpretation, and that the relationship between words used, concepts expressed, and the place of…

  • North West Provincial Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environmental and Rural Development and Another v Bosigo Investment and Trading CC and Another(228/2024) [2025] ZASCA 191 (15 December 2025)
    Applies

    Applied to establish that context and purpose may be used to elucidate the text of a contract, but are not a licence to contend for meanings unmoored in the…

  • Platinum Wheels (Pty) Ltd v The National Consumer Commission and Another(612/2023) [2024] ZASCA 163 (29 November 2024)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that statutory interpretation is a unitary exercise considering text, context and purpose, with a sensible interpretation preferred…

  • Post Office Retirement Fund v South African Post Office SOC Ltd and Others(1134/2020) [2021] ZASCA 186 (30 December 2021)
    Cites

    Cited as authority for the contextual approach to interpretation.

  • Remo Ventures (Pty) Ltd v Cecile Van Zyl and Others(1262/2022) [2024] ZASCA 09 (26 January 2024)
    Applies

    Applied the principle that a contract cannot be read in isolation but must be interpreted in context and according to the language the parties used, to support…

  • Roelof Louis Barry Slabbert NO & 3 Others v Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd t/a Rivierbos Guest House(772/2021) [2022] ZASCA 152 (04 November 2022)
    Cites

    The court cites this authority for the principle of holistic interpretation of contracts, namely simultaneously considering text, context and purpose.

  • Roger Rodney Hatton Smith v Buffalo City Municipality and OthersCase No. 1323/2008 (Eastern Cape Division, Makhanda) (unreported judgment delivered 8 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the triad of text, context, and purpose in interpretation should not be used in a mechanical fashion.

  • Samuel Alfred Schoonhoven N O and Others v Pieter Cornelius Antonius Schoonhoven and Others(791/2024) [2025] ZASCA 178 (28 November 2025)
    Applies

    Applied for the established principles of interpretation together with the Endumeni principles to interpret the Trust Deed and Will.

  • Sand Hawks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd and Others(190/2023) [2024] ZASCA 122 (16 August 2024)
    Applies

    Court applies the approach to statutory interpretation expanding on Endumeni, emphasizing the relationship between words used, concepts expressed and the place…

  • Selective Empowerment Investments 1 Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission(1325/2023) [2025] ZASCA 71 (30 May 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that words must be accorded their ordinary meaning in the context of the Act and having regard to its purpose.

  • Shiraz Sabdia N.O. and Another v Aniel Kanjee Soma and Another(845/2023) [2024] ZASCA 174 (12 December 2024)
    Applies

    The Court applied the caution from Capitec Bank that the triad of text, context and purpose should not be used in a mechanical fashion when interpreting the…

  • Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd v Cecil Tshepo Mokopane Mafate(903/2021) [2023] ZASCA 14 (17 February 2023)
    Cites

    The court cites this case as an example affirming that text, context and purpose must be considered simultaneously when interpreting legislation.

  • Silverback Technologies CC & Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(301/2022) [2023] ZASCA 128 (09 October 2023)
    Applies

    Applied to caution that the triad of text, context and purpose should not be used mechanically, but rather the relationship between words, concepts and the…

  • South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC and Another (Afriforum, Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Commission for Gender Equality intervening as Amici Curiae)(39/2023) [2024] ZASCA 121 (15 August 2024)
    Cites

    The court cites this judgment for the settled principles of statutory interpretation.

  • South African Legal Practice Council v Oosthuizen(1258/2023) [2025] ZASCA 168 (07 November 2025)
    Applies

    Applied for the interpretive methodology (the triad of words, context, and purpose) to determine the proper interpretation of section 40(8) of the Legal…

  • The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v African Bank Limited(242/2024) [2025] ZASCA 101 (8 July 2025)
    Applies

    The court applies the interpretative approach reaffirmed in Capitec to interpret sections 17(1) and 32(1)(a)(iv) of the VAT Act by considering language,…

  • The N'Wandlamhari Communal Property Association Concerned Beneficiaries v The N'Wandlamhari Communal Property Association and OthersCase No: LCC 89/2019 (Land Claims Court, delivered 10 August 2023)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that the triad of text, context and purpose should not be used mechanically and that interpretation should not import meanings into…

  • Traxys Africa Holdings Ltd and Another v Westbrook Resources Ltd(509/20) [2021] ZASCA 122
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the parol evidence rule requires that where parties reduce their agreement to writing and assent to it as complete, extrinsic…

  • Ubuhlebezwe Municipality v Ramsunder(873/2022) [2023] ZASCA 165 (1 December 2023)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that interpretation of legislation must follow the triad of text, context and purpose.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Contract Law cases

    • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
    • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97
    • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19
    • Aaron Chitewe v Josiah ChiroodzaJudgment No. SC 70/2002, Civil Appeal No. 391/00
    • Aaron Majero v Dubekile DandaHH 119-18, CIV 'A' 311/08
    • Aaron Mwenje v Intermarket Building SocietySC. 80/05 (Civil Appeal No. 358/04)

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97