Mhlari NO and Others v Nedbank Limited (251/2023) [2024] ZASCA 39 (4 April 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trust lacked the requisite number of trustees when the loan agreement was concluded, rendering the agreement and mortgage bond null and void. Nedbank's alternative claim for unjust enrichment was not prescribed, as it could not reasonably have discovered the trust's incapacity before the appellants raised it in their plea. The facts pleaded brought Nedbank's claim within the ambit of the condictio indebiti, requiring the bank to prove its mistake was reasonable and excusable. The court held that Nedbank's reliance on the trustees' representations and documents was reasonable, and its failure to conduct further due diligence did not amount to...
- Citation
- [2024] ZASCA 39
- Parties
- Appellant: Portia Khensani Mhlari NO; Appellant: Patrick Jealousy Malabela NO; Appellant: Portia Khensani Mhlari; Appellant: Patrick Jealousy Malabela; Appellant: Lulama Business Enterprises CC; Appellant: Mampepu Projects CC; Appellant: Patience Lethabo Mlengana NO; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 4 April 2024
- Case Number
- 251/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; cross-appeal upheld with costs; High Court order set aside and replaced with orders for repayment, mortgage bond cancellation, and costs.
- Judges
- Gorven, Matojane, Coppin, Smith, Keightley
- Legal Topics
- Unjust Enrichment, Condictio Indebiti, Condictio Sine Causa Specialis, Trustee Capacity, Prescription Act, Mortgage Bond Cancellation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Portia Khensani Mhlari NO
Appellant
Patrick Jealousy Malabela NO
Appellant
Portia Khensani Mhlari
Appellant
Patrick Jealousy Malabela
Appellant
Lulama Business Enterprises CC
Appellant
Mampepu Projects CC
Appellant
Patience Lethabo Mlengana NO
Appellant
Nedbank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trust had the legal capacity to conclude the loan agreement.
- 2 Whether Nedbank's alternative claim based on unjust enrichment had prescribed.
- 3 Whether Nedbank's mistake in paying the trust was reasonable and excusable under the condictio indebiti.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trust lacked the requisite number of trustees when the loan agreement was concluded, rendering the agreement and mortgage bond null and void. Nedbank's alternative claim for unjust enrichment was not prescribed, as it could not reasonably have discovered the trust's incapacity before the appellants raised it in their plea. The facts pleaded brought Nedbank's claim within the ambit of the condictio indebiti, requiring the bank to prove its mistake was reasonable and excusable. The court held that Nedbank's reliance on the trustees' representations and documents was reasonable, and its failure to conduct further due diligence did not amount to...
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; cross-appeal upheld with costs; High Court order set aside and replaced with orders for repayment, mortgage bond cancellation, and costs.
Orders
- The trustees of the Patrick Malabela Family Trust are ordered to pay the amount of R5,436,347.57 to Nedbank, together with mora interest from 12 September 2019 to date of final payment.
- Nedbank is directed to take necessary steps for cancellation of the covering mortgage bond registered with the Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria, registration number B2260/2023.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment