Malie NO and Others v Chisa and Others (101188/2015) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1184 (21 September 2023)

Malie NO and Others v Chisa and Others (101188/2015) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1184 (21 September 2023)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Mr Vere was a participant in the bribery scheme or that he had any knowledge or involvement in the payment or receipt of bribes. The evidence presented, including witness statements and documentary records, did not establish a causal link between Mr Vere and the alleged unlawful conduct. The court accepted Mr Vere's detailed account of his limited role in the project approval process and found his testimony credible and consistent. The late discovery of documents by the plaintiffs amounted to trial by ambush and did not alter the absence of proof against Mr Vere. Accordingly, the claim against the third...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1184
Parties
Plaintiff: Vusani Francis Malie N.O; Plaintiff: Andrew Conway Gaorekwe Malusi N.O; Plaintiff: Ophemetse Mogodi N.O; Plaintiff: Avanthi Parboosing N.O; Plaintiff: Motlogelwe Milton Matsipane N.O; Plaintiff: Dirk Johannes van Staden N.O; Plaintiff: Hugh Colin Cameron N.O; Plaintiff: Motlhatlhede Nelson Mosiapoa N.O; Plaintiff: Willem Frederick van Heerden N.O; Plaintiff: Yvonne Mfolo N.O; Defendant: Shiphra Chisa; Defendant: Teddy Mwewa Chisa; Defendant: Hector Vere; Defendant: Tumelo Mpolokeng; Defendant: Gideon Daniel van Tonder; Defendant: Danie Nel; Defendant: Andre Skeen; Defendant: Richard Kevin Smith; Defendant: Volufon (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2023
Case Number
101188/2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Trial / Final Judgment After Remittal From Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Claim against the third defendant dismissed with costs.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Reckless Trading, Joint and Several Liability, Bribery, Fiduciary Duties, Company Liquidation
Commercial and Corporate Delict Reckless Trading Joint and Several Liability Bribery Fiduciary Duties Company Liquidation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vusani Francis Malie N.O

Plaintiff

Andrew Conway Gaorekwe Malusi N.O

Plaintiff

Ophemetse Mogodi N.O

Plaintiff

Avanthi Parboosing N.O

Plaintiff

Motlogelwe Milton Matsipane N.O

Plaintiff

Dirk Johannes van Staden N.O

Plaintiff

Hugh Colin Cameron N.O

Plaintiff

Motlhatlhede Nelson Mosiapoa N.O

Plaintiff

Willem Frederick van Heerden N.O

Plaintiff

Yvonne Mfolo N.O

Plaintiff

Shiphra Chisa

Defendant

Teddy Mwewa Chisa

Defendant

Hector Vere

Defendant

Tumelo Mpolokeng

Defendant

Gideon Daniel van Tonder

Defendant

Danie Nel

Defendant

Andre Skeen

Defendant

Richard Kevin Smith

Defendant

Volufon (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Trial / Final Judgment After Remittal From Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third defendant, Mr Vere, was a party to the bribery scheme involving Volufon and the SIOC Trust.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence exists to hold Mr Vere jointly and severally liable in delict for damages claimed by the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether documentary and witness evidence links Mr Vere to the receipt or facilitation of bribe payments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Mr Vere was a participant in the bribery scheme or that he had any knowledge or involvement in the payment or receipt of bribes. The evidence presented, including witness statements and documentary records, did not establish a causal link between Mr Vere and the alleged unlawful conduct. The court accepted Mr Vere's detailed account of his limited role in the project approval process and found his testimony credible and consistent. The late discovery of documents by the plaintiffs amounted to trial by ambush and did not alter the absence of proof against Mr Vere. Accordingly, the claim against the third...

Court Disposition

Claim against the third defendant dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The claim against the third defendant is dismissed, with costs.