South Africa Case Law

Economic Freedom Fighters v Brightstone Trading 3 CC t/a Gordon Road Spar and Others - Appeal (JA129/2021)

Economic Freedom Fighters v Brightstone Trading 3 CC t/a Gordon Road Spar and Others - Appeal (JA129/2021) [2023] ZALAC 21; [2023] 11 BLLR 1148 (LAC); (2023) 44 ILJ 2679 (LAC) (17 August 2023)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA129/2021

Judges

Waglay, Savage, Gqamana

The Labour Appeal Court held that the doctrine of ostensible authority requires that the principal, in this case the EFF, must have created an appearance or representation by words or conduct that its agent had authority to act on its behalf. The evidence did not show that the EFF, as a voluntary association, made such a representation or that it should reasonably have expected outsiders to act on the strength of it. The fact that Spar communicated with the EFF regional office indicated awareness of the party's internal structures and did not amount to a representation by the EFF itself. The…

Source excerpt

• Ostensible Authority
• Costs Order
• Urgent Interdict
• Agency By Estoppel

Bannister's Printer (Pty) Limited v D and A Calenders CC and Another (1078/2016)

Bannister's Printer (Pty) Limited v D and A Calenders CC and Another (1078/2016) [2018] ZASCA 17 (15 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1078/2016

Judges

Lewis, Leach, Willis, Pillay, Mothle

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the purported settlement agreement was a forgery and did not reflect consensus between the parties. The appellant relied on a document that was fraudulently created by the respondents' legal representative, Lieberthal, and not on any conduct by the respondents that clothed Lieberthal with authority. The court distinguished the present case from Kruizenga, noting that agency by estoppel requires a representation rooted in the words and conduct of the principal, which was absent here. The maxim 'fraud unravels all' applies only between victim and perpetrato…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Agency By Estoppel
• Fraudulent Document
• Authority Of Attorney
• Forgery
• Costs Award

First Rand Bank Ltd v Calitz NO and Another (19940/2009)

First Rand Bank Ltd v Calitz NO and Another (19940/2009) [2010] ZAWCHC 124 (1 June 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19940/2009

Judge

Dlodlo

The court found that the First Respondent, having consistently acted on behalf of the Trust and holding a letter of authority from the Master, had implied authority to bind the Trust. The letter 'BDB11' constituted an unequivocal admission of inability to pay debts and thus an act of insolvency under section 8(g) of the Insolvency Act. The Trust is estopped from denying the First Respondent's authority due to his prior conduct and the absence of objection from the Second Respondent. The Applicant established a prima facie case for provisional sequestration, as the requirements of a liquidated…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration
• Act Of Insolvency
• Trustee Authority
• Agency By Estoppel
• Liquidated Claims

Allison v Absa Bank Limited (22361/03)

Allison v Absa Bank Limited (22361/03) [2007] ZAGPHC 133 (26 July 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

22361/03

Judge

Mabuse

The court found no binding oral finance agreement with Absa and dismissed Roger Allison’s claim, but upheld Absa’s counterclaim and surety-based claim.

• Breach Of Contract
• Suretyship
• Banking Facilities
• Agency By Estoppel
• Counterclaim
• Quantum Separation

Lesotho National Life Assurance Company Limited v Standard Bank Unit Trusts Limited (770/2002_)

Lesotho National Life Assurance Company Limited v Standard Bank Unit Trusts Limited (770/2002_) [2005] ZAFSHC 29; ; (24 February 2005)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

770/2002

Judge

Van Coppenhagen

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that Stanfin and/or Van Jaarsveldt were authorised, either actually or ostensibly, by the defendant to conclude the contract. There was no evidence that the defendant created any representation by words or conduct that Stanfin or Van Jaarsveldt had authority to bind it. The mere fact that Stanfin and the defendant were part of the same group and shared branding was insufficient to establish agency or estoppel. The plaintiff's reliance on the impression created by the Standard Bank group was unreasonable, as each company is a separate legal en…

Source excerpt

• Agency By Estoppel
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Contract Formation
• Group Company Liability

NBS Bank Ltd v Cape Produce Company Pty Ltd and Others (281/99)

NBS Bank Ltd v Cape Produce Company Pty Ltd and Others (281/99) [2001] ZASCA 107; [2002] 2 All SA 262 (A); 2002 (1) SA 396 (SCA) (28 September 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

281/99

Judges

Schutz, Nienaber, Marais, Navsa, Froneman

The court held that NBS Bank was bound by its branch manager’s apparent authority to issue deposit undertakings and repay investors, but Trevor Bradley was liable to indemnify the bank.

• Ostensible Authority
• Agency By Estoppel
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Contractual Liability
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Indemnification