Oberholster NO and Others v Zephan Properties (Pty) Ltd (2762/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 246 (20 December 2012)

Oberholster NO and Others v Zephan Properties (Pty) Ltd (2762/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 246 (20 December 2012)

The court found that Pickvest and its agents had actual authority from the respondent to sell its shares in Highveld 21 and Highveld 22. The contracts for the sale of shares were concluded between the applicants and the respondent, and payment was made on behalf of the respondent. The respondent's argument that Pickvest exceeded its authority by selling more shares than it owned was rejected, as the mandate did not expressly or impliedly prohibit such conduct. The applicants received interest payments and share certificates for Highveld 22, indicating performance of the contract. However, the issue of whether the respondent was unjustly enriched at the applicants' expense could not be...

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 246
Parties
Applicant: Guillaume Johannes Oberholster N.O.; Applicant: Andre Johan Posthumus N.O.; Applicant: Antoinette Posthumus N.O.; Respondent: Zephan Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Case Number
2762/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Referral for Oral Evidence After Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Matter referred for oral evidence to determine whether the respondent was unjustly enriched at the expense of the applicants' trust.
Judges
S Ebrahim
Legal Topics
Agency Authority, Unjust Enrichment, Contract Formation, Business Rescue, Condictio Sine Causa
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Agency Authority Unjust Enrichment Contract Formation Business Rescue Condictio Sine Causa

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guillaume Johannes Oberholster N.O.

Applicant

Andre Johan Posthumus N.O.

Applicant

Antoinette Posthumus N.O.

Applicant

Zephan Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Referral for Oral Evidence After Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pickvest and its agents had authority to act on behalf of the respondent in selling shares to the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether valid contracts of sale were concluded between the applicants and the respondent for shares in Highveld 21 and Highveld 22.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was unjustly enriched at the expense of the applicants' trust.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Pickvest and its agents had actual authority from the respondent to sell its shares in Highveld 21 and Highveld 22. The contracts for the sale of shares were concluded between the applicants and the respondent, and payment was made on behalf of the respondent. The respondent's argument that Pickvest exceeded its authority by selling more shares than it owned was rejected, as the mandate did not expressly or impliedly prohibit such conduct. The applicants received interest payments and share certificates for Highveld 22, indicating performance of the contract. However, the issue of whether the respondent was unjustly enriched at the applicants' expense could not be...

Court Disposition

Matter referred for oral evidence to determine whether the respondent was unjustly enriched at the expense of the applicants' trust.

Orders

  • This matter is referred for the hearing of oral evidence on a date to be arranged with the Registrar, on the question of whether or not the respondent has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the applicants’ trust to the extent of R30 million in consequence of the conclusion between them of contracts of purchase...
  • Each party is entitled to call any/or such witnesses as it may consider necessary in order to effectively conduct its case at such hearing.