Pretorius v Meyer NNO (1796/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 149 (9 December 2009)

Pretorius v Meyer NNO (1796/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 149 (9 December 2009)

The court found that the Mahemsrus Trust deed required joint action by both trustees for any binding agreement. Mr Meyer acted alone and without the authority or approval of the co-trustee, Mrs De Klerk. The power of attorney and correspondence prepared by the plaintiff referenced Mr Meyer personally and not the trust. There was no evidence that the trust, through its trustees acting jointly, authorised the alleged oral agreement or the payment of commission. Consequently, any agreement entered into by Mr Meyer alone was void and unenforceable against the trust. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving proper authority and his claim against the trust could not succeed.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 149
Parties
Plaintiff: Andries Petrus Pretorius; Defendant: Petrus Cornelius Meyer NO; Defendant: Abrahama De Klerk NO
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2009
Case Number
1796/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Makgoba
Legal Topics
Trustee Authority, Oral Agreement, Mandate, Commission Claim
Commercial and Corporate Trustee Authority Oral Agreement Mandate Commission Claim

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

Parties

Andries Petrus Pretorius

Plaintiff

Petrus Cornelius Meyer NO

Defendant

Abrahama De Klerk NO

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Meyer had authority to represent and bind the Mahemsrus Trust in entering into the alleged oral agreement with the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether there was a valid contract of mandate between the plaintiff and the defendant trust for handling the insurance claim.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to remuneration based on the alleged oral agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Mahemsrus Trust deed required joint action by both trustees for any binding agreement. Mr Meyer acted alone and without the authority or approval of the co-trustee, Mrs De Klerk. The power of attorney and correspondence prepared by the plaintiff referenced Mr Meyer personally and not the trust. There was no evidence that the trust, through its trustees acting jointly, authorised the alleged oral agreement or the payment of commission. Consequently, any agreement entered into by Mr Meyer alone was void and unenforceable against the trust. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving proper authority and his claim against the trust could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs.