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

Namasthethu Electrical (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Another

Citation(201/19) [2020] ZASCA 74
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
Arbitration Law
Public Procurement Law
Administrative Law

Facts of the Case

On 7 March 2014, the City of Cape Town advertised a tender for the supply, retrofit and installation of energy efficient luminaries at the Cape Town Civic Centre. On 25 August 2014, the tender was awarded to Namasthethu Electrical (Pty) Ltd with an estimated value of R29,263,401.75 (excluding VAT) for an 18-month project. A written contract was concluded in November 2014. In its tender submission, Namasthethu's director Ms Shamla Chetty declared that neither the company nor any of its directors had been convicted of fraud or corruption in the past five years. An unsuccessful bidder, Citrine Construction, later complained that Namasthethu and its directors had been convicted of fraud and corruption on 13 August 2013. Upon investigation, the City discovered that: (1) Mr Ravan Chetty, a director of Namasthethu, had been criminally convicted of fraud and corruption in November 2013 pursuant to a plea agreement, receiving a fine of R200,000 and a suspended 5-year prison sentence; and (2) Namasthethu had provided a fictitious local business address (7 15th Avenue, Kensington) in its tender documents. Following a forensic investigation by the City's Forensics, Ethics and Integrity Department (FEID) that concluded in February 2016, the City cancelled the contract on 15 March 2016 citing fraudulent misrepresentations during the tender process. Namasthethu disputed the cancellation and insisted that the dispute be adjudicated in accordance with the contract's dispute resolution clause (clause 40). An adjudicator, James Garner, was appointed and made a determination in favour of Namasthethu, awarding damages totaling over R2.4 million. The City applied to the High Court to set aside the adjudication determination and to have its termination of the contract upheld.

Legal Issues

  • Whether an arbitration or adjudication clause in a contract survives the termination of that contract on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Whether the dispute resolution clause in the contract bound the City to submit to adjudication where the contract had been induced by fraud
  • Whether the City validly terminated the contract for fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Whether the adjudicator's determination was lawfully made and should be set aside
  • Whether the City waived its right to rescind the contract or elected not to do so by virtue of the time taken to investigate the fraud allegations
  • Whether there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding the fraud allegations that should have precluded the court from making findings on the papers

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court's order setting aside the adjudicator's determination and upholding the City's valid termination of the contract for fraud was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established are: (1) An arbitration or adjudication clause contained in a contract does not survive the termination/rescission of that contract where the contract was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation, unless the contract contains specific, clear language expressly providing that disputes about the contract's validity due to fraud should be arbitrated; (2) The principle that 'fraud unravels everything' applies to render contracts voidable at the instance of the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party may elect to rescind the contract; (3) Once a contract has been validly rescinded for fraud, an adjudication clause embedded in the fraud-tainted contract cannot be enforced, as to do so would be offensive to justice; (4) General dispute resolution language covering disagreements 'arising out of or concerning' a contract does not constitute the specific, clear language necessary to require arbitration of disputes about whether the contract was induced by fraud; (5) Dispute resolution clauses that contemplate the contract remaining valid (such as those requiring continued performance of obligations during dispute resolution) cannot be interpreted as covering disputes about the contract's fundamental validity due to fraud at formation.

Obiter Dicta

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) It noted with approval Cameron J's warning in Absa Bank v Moore that the maxim 'fraud unravels all' is 'not a flame-thrower, withering all within reach' and that fraud unravels all directly within its compass, but only between victim and perpetrator, at the instance of the victim; (2) The court suggested that the appellant's technical arguments about distinguishing between convictions of Ravan Chetty in different capacities (personally vs. representing different entities) were contrived attempts to obscure the material fact that a director had been convicted of fraud during the relevant period; (3) The court observed that in tender adjudication processes, points are awarded for locality, which provided context for understanding why Namasthethu would have provided a false local business address; (4) The court commented that one can 'hardly be expected to give notice to cure fraud or corrupt conduct,' distinguishing fraud-based termination from termination for breach of contractual obligations; (5) The court noted that the City's forensic investigation, while perhaps not conducted with maximum urgency, reflected an intent to obtain verified and accurate information rather than any waiver of rights; (6) The court emphasized the 'widespread nature of fraud and corruption and its corrosive effect on society,' justifying the punitive costs order.

Legal Significance

This case is significant in South African contract and arbitration law for several reasons: (1) It reaffirms and applies the fundamental principle that fraud vitiates all transactions and 'unravels everything'; (2) It clarifies that arbitration and adjudication clauses do not generally survive the rescission of contracts induced by fraudulent misrepresentation; (3) It establishes that for an arbitration clause to survive fraud-based rescission, the contract must contain specific, clear language expressly providing that disputes about the contract's validity due to fraud should be arbitrated - general dispute resolution language is insufficient; (4) It provides important guidance on the interpretation of dispute resolution clauses in commercial contracts, particularly in the context of public procurement; (5) It demonstrates the courts' approach to combating fraud and corruption in public procurement processes; (6) It confirms that where fraud is established, the aggrieved party can elect to rescind the contract and is not bound by dispute resolution mechanisms in the tainted contract; (7) The case has particular relevance for public sector contracting and tender processes, emphasizing the importance of truthful declarations and the consequences of fraudulent misrepresentations; (8) It illustrates the application of the principle that contracts must be interpreted to give them commercially sensible meanings; (9) The punitive costs order reflects the judiciary's stern approach to fraud and corruption, recognizing their corrosive societal effects.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 5 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • A Bullock NO & 2 Others v Provincial Government of North West ProvinceCase number: 44/03 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that an arbitration clause embedded in a fraud-tainted agreement cannot survive rescission and enforcing it would offend justice.

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

    Cited for Cameron J's warning that the maxim 'fraud unravels all' is not a flame-thrower but unravels all directly within its compass, only between victim and…

  • Esorfranki Pipelines (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mopani District Municipality and Others(40/13) [2014] ZASCA 21 (28 March 2014)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that fraud unravels everything and all transactions; referenced in relation to locality points in tender processes.

  • Gutsche Family Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mettle Equity Group (Pty) Ltd and Others(133/06) [2007] ZASCA 45
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an arbitrator may only finally determine his or her own jurisdiction if provided for specifically and in the clearest terms.

Cited By 152 Cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    Applies

    Applied for the distinction between direct judicial review and defensive or collateral challenges to the validity of an administrative act, in the context of…

  • A. C. Whitcher (Pty) Limited v The Competition Commission of South Africa and OthersCase No.: 84/CAC/Jan09
    Applies

    The Court applied this case's principle that setting aside an administrative decision does not automatically affect the legal consequences of acts taken…

  • Aquila Steel (South Africa) (Pty) Limited v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others[2018] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that a court that is asked to set aside an invalid administrative act has a discretion whether to grant or withhold the remedy.

  • Arun Property Development (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town[2014] ZACC 37
    Appeal From

    The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the City's appeal and reversed the High Court decision. The Court held that the majority decision in Helderberg was binding…

Practice This Case

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

  • Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v SASBO, The Finance Union and OthersCase no: JA107/2022 (LAC, unreported)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that arbitration clauses do not generally survive fraud allegations and that disputes regarding validity of contracts induced by…

  • Asla Construction (Pty) Limited v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality(894/2016) [2017] ZASCA 23 (24 March 2017)
    Follows

    Relied upon to hold that the 180-day period under s 7 of PAJA commences when the applicant becomes aware of the decision and its reasons, not when the…

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 39/10) [2010] ZACC 26
    Considers

    Considered in the context of the discretionary refusal of relief, specifically addressing the apparent anomaly that an unlawful act can produce legally…

  • Britannia Beach Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Saldanha Bay Municipality[2013] ZACC 30
    Follows

    The Supreme Court of Appeal applied this decision in relation to the lawfulness of conditions imposed in terms of section 42 of LUPO and the procedure for…

  • British American Tobacco South Africa (Pty) Limited v Minister of Health(463/2011) [2012] ZASCA 107
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that commercial speech may count for less than other forms of expression and that this valuation is to be taken into account at the…

  • Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Asla Construction (Pty) Limited[2019] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited as the seminal judgment from which the line of cases on adhering to procedural requirements in review stems.

  • Camps Bay Ratepayers' and Residents' Association and Another v Gerda Yvonne Ada Harrison and Another(CCT 18/10) [2010] ZACC 19
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that administrative decisions are often built on the supposition that previous decisions were validly taken and unless challenged…

  • CC Groenewald NO v M5 Developments (Cape) (Pty) Ltd(283/09) [2010] ZASCA 47
    Cites

    Cited to support the criticism of the preferential procurement regulations both in regard to their clarity and content.

  • Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces v Malema(535/2015) [2016] ZASCA 69 (20 May 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a decision cannot be ignored until it is set aside by a court.

  • City Capital SA Property Holdings Limited v Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper NO(85/2017) [2017] ZASCA 177 (1 December 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an administrative decision is valid and stands until it is reviewed and set aside.

  • City of Cape Town v Helderberg Park Development (Pty) Ltd(291/07) [2008] ZASCA 79 (2 June 2008)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that an ultra vires administrative act is effective and binding until and unless set aside, and that the target of unlawful…

  • City of Cape Town v Khaya Projects (Pty) Ltd(158/2015) [2016] ZASCA 107 (26 July 2016)
    Appeal From

    This is the decision from the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town (Mantame J) from which this appeal is brought; appeal partially upheld, with…

  • City of Johannesburg v Ad Outpost (Pty) Ltd(55/11) [2012] ZASCA 40 (29 March 2012)
    Follows

    Court follows the authority that an invalid administrative decision stands and has effect until it is set aside.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Cable City (Pty) Ltd(232/08) [2009] ZASCA 87 (10 September 2009)
    Applies

    Applied to explain the right to raise a collateral challenge to the validity of administrative action and that a citizen is not required to comply with an…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Cable City (Pty) Ltd[2009] ZACC 34
    Considers

    The Supreme Court of Appeal referred to the concept of 'collateral challenge' as set out in this case at paras 32-6 to support the finding that the respondent…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Glofurn (Pty) Ltd(136/2023) [2024] ZASCA 101 (19 June 2024)
    Considers

    The court considers the principle from this case that administrative decisions remain valid and effectual until set aside by a competent court, but…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Malvigenix NPC t/a Wecanwin and Others(90/2023) [2024] ZASCA 76 (16 May 2024)
    Distinguishes

    The court distinguishes Oudekraal, holding that its principle concerning the validity of consequent acts does not apply where the first act has been set aside.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Mathabathe & another(502/12) [2013] ZASCA 60 (22 May 2013)
    Cites

    Cited by Nugent JA to explain the two ways municipalities are assisted in collecting debts: a charge upon property (s 118(3)) and capacity to block transfer (s…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Peregrine Joseph Mitchell(38/2015) [2015] ZASCA 1 (29 January 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that municipalities are obliged by the Act to adopt, maintain and implement a credit-control and debt-collection policy.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Uniqon Wonings (Pty) Ltd(20771/2014) [2015] ZASCA 162 (20 November 2015)
    Applies

    The court applies Nugent JA's analysis of the purpose of s 118(1) and (3) of the Systems Act as assisting municipalities by providing security for debts and…

  • Dennegeur Estate Home Owners Association and Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Soc Ltd(366/2018) [2019] ZASCA 37 (29 March 2019)
    Follows

    Court follows precedent on the constitutional functions of municipalities in relation to roads and the role of municipalities in electronic communications…

  • Dr Wouter Basson v Prof J F M Hugo & others(968/16) [2017] ZASCA 01 (17 January 2018)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that an administrative decision exists in fact and has legal consequences that cannot be overlooked until set aside by a court in…

  • Dykema v Malebane and Another[2019] ZACC 33
    Distinguishes

    High Court held that the Oudekraal doctrine did not sustain Mr Dykema's argument that the Tribunal decision should be treated as valid until set aside.

  • Eedenprop (Pty) Ltd v The Kouga Municipality(541/10) [2011] ZASCA 92 (31 May 2011)
    Distinguishes

    Respondent relied on this case to argue that administrative acts not appealed or reviewed must stand, but the appellant distinguished it on the basis that its…

  • Electoral Commission of South Africa v African Independent Congress and others(0011/23EC) [2024] ZAEC 11 (10 May 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that regulations are binding until reviewed and set aside by a competent court.

  • Elsie Gundwana v Steko Development CC and Others(CCT 44/10) [2011] ZACC 14
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that constitutional invalidity does not automatically undo everything that followed; further steps required.

  • Eskom Holdings Limited and Kwanda Ferro Alloy African Resources (Pty) Ltd v The New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd(358/08) [2009] ZASCA 8 (13 March 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the court's discretion under section 8 of PAJA is the indispensable moderating tool for avoiding or minimising injustice when…

  • Etienne Jacques Naude and Louis Pasteur Hospital Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Louis Pasteur Medical Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others(31/2021) [2022] ZASCA 139 (24 October 2022)
    Cites

    Cited to support that an order remains extant until varied, rescinded or set aside, despite abandonment.

  • Executrix of the Estate of the Late Josephine Terblanche Gouws (Charmaine Celliers N.O.) v Magnificent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Ltd & others(594/17) [2018] ZASCA 91
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a collateral challenge arises where a public authority seeks to coerce compliance with an unlawful administrative act.

  • 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 proposition that NEMA is the primary legislative instrument to give effect to s 24 of the Constitution by establishing a framework for…

  • Fatima Maliwa Dlwati v King Sabata Dalindyebo FET CollegeCase No: P50/15 (Labour Court, Port Elizabeth)
    Cites

    Cited as endorsing Lord Atkin's observation in Ras Behari Lal that justice is better than finality.

  • Fintech (Pty) Ltd v Awake Solutions (Pty) Ltd(218/13) [2014] ZASCA 63 (15 May 2014)
    Applies

    Applied the principles of judicial review and the concept of collateral or defensive challenge to the validity of administrative acts; also applied in holding…

  • Giant Concerts CC v Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 25/12) [2012] ZACC 28
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a successful challenge to a public decision can be brought only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right…

  • Global Environmental Trust and Others v Tendele Coal Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others(1105/2019) [2021] ZASCA 13 (09 February 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that NEMA establishes a framework for environmental decision-making, that s 4 of the MPRDA requires interpretation consistent with s 24…

  • Goldrush Group (Pty) Ltd v North West Gambling Board and Others(648/2021) [2022] ZASCA 164 (28 November 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the court will only invalidate an order if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and…

  • Govan Mbeki Municipality v New Integrated Credit Solutions (Pty) Ltd(121/2020) [2021] ZASCA 34 (7 April 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the formulation that collateral challenge is available to an individual threatened by a public authority with coercive action.

  • Greater Bloemfontein Taxi Association and Another v Retshedisitsoe Issac Mafisa(664/2024) [2025] ZASCA 135 (18 September 2025)
    Applies

    Applied to support the principle that an administrative decision is valid until set aside, specifically regarding the MEC's decision granting the permit.

  • Green Willows Properties 215 (Pty) Ltd v Rogalla von Biberstein Investment Company (Pty) Ltd(20436/2014) [2015] ZASCA 133 (29 September 2015)
    Applies

    The court a quo applied the principle from Oudekraal that even if an approval is invalid, it stands until set aside.

  • Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others[2013] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a person has the right to raise a collateral challenge to the validity of an administrative act where threatened with coercive…

  • Helicopter & Marine Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v V & A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd and OthersCase CCT 53/05
    Considers

    The SCA relied on this judgment to refuse the applicant a right to attack the grounding order collaterally; this Court considers whether the limits for…

  • IGS Consulting Engineers CC and Another v Transnet SOC Limited(198/2020) [2022] ZASCA 63 (29 April 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts will not hear appeals where the only consideration is costs in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.

  • Independent Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd and Others v The City of Cape Town
    Considers

    The court considers the earlier high court judgment involving a similar constitutional challenge to the Bylaw, where Bouley's counter-application was dismissed…

  • International Trade Administration Commission and Others v Association of Meat Importers and Exporters and Others(159/2024) [2025] ZASCA 173 (18 November 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an administrative act, although invalid, must be treated as valid until set aside, and its factual existence may provide…

  • Jacobs v Baumann NO(126/08) [2009] ZASCA 43 (8 May 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an order remains effective for its ostensible purpose until properly set aside.

  • JDJ Properties CC and Another v Umngeni Local Municipality and Another(873/11) [2012] ZASCA 186 (29 November 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that an administrative decision exists in fact and is capable of having legally valid consequences until set aside.

  • Judicial Service Commission v Cape Bar Council (Centre for Constitutional Rights as amicus curiae)(818/2011) [2012] ZASCA 115 (14 September 2012)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that courts have discretion to set aside invalid administrative acts, providing the moderating tool when legality and certainty…

  • Kgoshi Ngoako Isaac Lebogo and Another v Headman Enos Matome Kobe and Others(1204/2021) [2024] ZASCA 160 (18 November 2024)
    Applies

    The Court applied the factors relevant for determining whether condonation should be granted as set out in this SCA case, which was reaffirmed by the…

  • Kingsley Jack Whiteaway Seale v Bernard Renier Van Rooyen NO and Others; Provincial Government, North West Province v Bernard Renier Van Rooyen NO and Others(133/07) [2008] ZASCA 28 (27 March 2008)
    Applies

    The court applies the analysis adopted in Oudekraal regarding the validity of acts performed consequent upon an initial invalid act and the indispensable…

  • Kini Bay Village Association v The Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality(434/07) [2008] ZASCA 66 (29 May 2008)
    Cites

    Cited as example where costs awards were made in matters involving constitutional rights.

  • Kitshoff v Fedsure Staff Pension Fund & others(597/16) [2017] ZASCA 31
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the validity of a transfer stands until set aside.

  • Kwadukuza Municipality v Consolidated Aone Trade and Invest 6 (Pty) Ltd [in Liquidation] and Others(1273/2023) [2025] ZASCA 86 (11 June 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretation that had it been intended not to limit the period to two years then the words would not have appeared at all in s 118(1).

  • Kwa Sani Municipality v Underberg/Himeville Community Watch Association(180/2014) [2015] ZASCA 24 (20 March 2015)
    Applies

    The court applies the Oudekraal principle that administrative action must be treated as valid until set aside, even if actually invalid, and explains the only…

  • Law Society of the Northern Provinces v Louw De Witt Le Roux(185/2015) [2015] ZASCA 168
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that invalid administrative action may not simply be ignored, but remains valid and effectual until set aside on judicial review.

  • Lester v Ndlambe Municipality[2013] ZASCA 95 (22 August 2013); Case No: 514/12
    Follows

    Followed for the principle that administrative decisions are presumed valid and must be accepted as fact unless challenged and set aside by a competent court.

  • Liesching and Others v The State[2018] ZACC 25
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the Court should not venture into deciding important legal questions without full legal argument from the litigants.

  • Lieutenant Colonel KB O'Brien NO v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others(1271/2021) [2022] ZASCA 178
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court will only invalidate an order if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances.

  • London Clubs International (Overseas) Investments (Pty) Ltd v The Free State Gambling and Racing BoardCase No: 525/2003, Reportable
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that our law has always recognised that even an unlawful administrative act is capable of producing valid consequences for so long as…

  • 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