Webber Wentzel v Essop and Another (20954/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 438 (8 May 2023)

Webber Wentzel v Essop and Another (20954/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 438 (8 May 2023)

The court found that the first defendant, having received proper notice of the trial date and failing to appear, was in default. The evidence presented by the plaintiff, including affidavits and expert reports, established on a balance of probabilities that the first defendant received bribes totaling R824,950 in exchange for awarding contracts to suppliers. The plaintiff was entitled to disgorgement of these amounts. Furthermore, the expert evidence confirmed that the forensic investigation costs of R1,472,765.17 were fair and reasonable, and thus recoverable from the first defendant. The court accepted all evidence placed before it and granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 438
Parties
Plaintiff: Webber Wentzel; Defendant: Faizal Essop; Defendant: Paul Peter
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2023
Case Number
20954/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Default Judgment After Settlement With Second Defendant; Trial Proceeds Against First Defendant
Outcome
Judgment granted by default in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant for the disgorgement of bribe amounts and forensic investigation costs.
Judges
Wright
Legal Topics
Bribery and Corruption, Disgorgement of Profits, Default Judgment, Expert Evidence
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Bribery and Corruption Disgorgement of Profits Default Judgment Expert Evidence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Webber Wentzel

Plaintiff

Faizal Essop

Defendant

Paul Peter

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Default Judgment After Settlement With Second Defendant; Trial Proceeds Against First Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant received bribes in return for awarding contracts to suppliers.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to disgorgement of the bribe amounts from the first defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the forensic investigation are fair and reasonable and recoverable from the first defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first defendant, having received proper notice of the trial date and failing to appear, was in default. The evidence presented by the plaintiff, including affidavits and expert reports, established on a balance of probabilities that the first defendant received bribes totaling R824,950 in exchange for awarding contracts to suppliers. The plaintiff was entitled to disgorgement of these amounts. Furthermore, the expert evidence confirmed that the forensic investigation costs of R1,472,765.17 were fair and reasonable, and thus recoverable from the first defendant. The court accepted all evidence placed before it and granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment granted by default in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant for the disgorgement of bribe amounts and forensic investigation costs.

Orders

  • The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R824,950 as disgorgement of bribes received.
  • The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R1,472,765.17 as reimbursement for the costs of the forensic investigation.