Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Hitachi Power Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (139/2013) [2013] ZASCA 101, 12 September 2013
Eskom presented three performance guarantees for payment while its disputes with Hitachi over performance at Medupi were still live. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that because the guarantees were on demand, they could be called without prior notice to the contractor, and the dispute under the building contract did not stop the call. The guarantee wording is the first thing anyone looks at, and any restriction on your client's right to call on the guarantee has to be written into the guarantee itself. A court will not read one in.
Minister of Transport and Public Works, Western Cape and Another v Zanbuild Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (68/2010) [2011] ZASCA 10, 2011 (5) SA 528 (SCA), 11 March 2011
The same kind of guarantee, worded differently, gave the opposite result. The wording tied what the bank owed to what the contractor actually owed under the building contract, so the court treated it as surety style rather than on demand. The bank was entitled to refuse payment where the client had not proved what it was owed.