Wilma Petru Kooij v Middleground Trading 251 CC and Another (1249 /18)  ZASCA 45 (23 April 2020)
Our law has always held that the title to an agreement cannot mask its real nature. This determination is a turning point, as this case illustrates: were parties to enter into a lease of part of a farm where peat can be harvested, the subsequent event that made continued harvesting impossible would not affect the continuance of the lease. On the other hand, if the agreement in truth was a prospecting agreement, the supervening impossibility relating to the peat harvesting would allow the ‘tenant’ to exercise its rights as relates to vis maior (“Act of God”). The Judgment can be viewed here.
MARRIAGE IN COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY, DIVORCE AND LIABILITY UNDER SURETYSHIP
Sivemangal v AM Gas & General Suppliers (Pty) Ltd and Others (10174/17P)  ZAKZPHC 8 (19 March 2020)
It is generally appreciated that a spouse married in community of property may only sign a suretyship with the written consent of the other spouse. There are exceptions though, notably where the surety was acting in the ordinary course of business. The difficulty that required adjudication in this matter was whether an ex-spouse remains bound to the suretyship he or she did not sign, despite the fact that the creditor issues summons after a divorce and in which the ex-spouses each indemnified the other in respect of their ‘own’ debts. The Judgment can be viewed here.