INNOVENT RENTAL & ASSET MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD v TRANSET SOC LTD (917/2018) [2019] ZASCA 106 (5 SEPTEMBER 2019)
Wednesday, 18 September 2019
SUMMARY On or about 17 February 2005, Innovent Rental & Asset Management Solutions (PTY) Ltd (“the Appellant”), a company that finances the acquisition and leasing of equipment, entered into a Master Rental Agreement (“MRA”) with Transnet SOC LTD (“the Respondent”), under which it would acquire equipment in accordance with the specifications of the Respondent, and
- Published in 2019, law of contract, News
No Comments
Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Maswanganyi [2019] ZASCA 86 (31 May 2019) (739/18)
Friday, 23 August 2019
SUMMARY On or about 31 May 2019, the Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) upheld an appeal against a judgment and order of the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Raulinga J, sitting as court of first instance) (the “High Court”). The matter concerned itself with the interpretation of s 59(1)(d) of the
Merchant West (Pty) Ltd v Cell C (Pty) Ltd (17/22900) [2019] ZAGPJHC 26 (7 February 2019)
Wednesday, 07 August 2019
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The application involves the interpretation of a lease agreement (“the lease agreement”) between Merchant West (Pty) Ltd (“the Applicant”) and Cell C (Pty) Ltd (“the Respondent”). The lease agreement was made up of a Master Rental Agreement (“the MRA”) concluded on 19 December 2013, a side letter dated 4 December 2013 and
- Published in News, Contract Law, interpretation
Centriq Insurance Company Limited v Oosthuizen and Another (237/2018) [2019] ZASCA 11 (14 March 2019)
Monday, 08 April 2019
SUMMARY This is an appeal by Centriq Insurance (Centriq) against a ruling holding it liable to its insured member, a financial advisor (Mr Castro), under a professional indemnity policy. Mr Castro advised Mrs Marisa Vogel Oosthuizen (the Respondent), who is a widow, to invest the proceeds of her deceased husband’s policy in an amount
- Published in 2019, Insurance Law, News
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND V MASINDI (586 / 2017) [2018] ZASCA 94 (1 JUNE 2018)
Wednesday, 19 September 2018
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This matter dealt with the interpretation of section 23(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (“the RAF Act”), particularly, the manner in which the five-year prescription period applicable to the Respondent’s claim should be calculated. On 17 June 2009, the Respondent, and her minor child where hit by a
- Published in 2018, Prescription
