South Africa Case Law

Western Reefs Primary School v Erasmus Jooste Inc (CIV APP FB 19/2023)

Western Reefs Primary School v Erasmus Jooste Inc (CIV APP FB 19/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 39 (21 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP FB 19/2023

Judges

Petersen, Reid, Mfenyana

The court found that Erasmus Jooste Inc, as a firm of attorneys, failed to provide a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The misunderstanding regarding the need for a transcript was not justifiable for a professional litigant. The delay was substantial, and the explanation was weak, especially given the value of the claim and the expectation of diligence from attorneys. The documents required by the discovery order were not produced, and the claim was properly struck out. The interests of justice and the need for finality in litigation outweighed any…

Source excerpt

• Condonation For Late Appeal
• Reinstatement Of Lapsed Appeal
• Discovery And Document Production
• Striking Out Of Claim
• Attorney Client Fees

Margolis and Another v Office Installations SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (44154/2021)

Margolis and Another v Office Installations SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (44154/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 433 (30 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44154/2021

Judge

Omphemetse Mooki

The High Court held that the plaintiffs proved an oral mandate entitling them to recover outstanding litigation disbursements, with interest and costs.

• Oral Agreement
• Attorney Client Fees
• Disbursements
• Mandate Termination
• Interest On Debt
• Oral-agreement

W Capital Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another v GP Venter Attorneys Inc and Another (79444/2019)

W Capital Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another v GP Venter Attorneys Inc and Another (79444/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 223 (11 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

79444/2019

Judge

N Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court ordered payment of trust monies and counsel’s fees, rejected a prescription defence, and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim.

• Attorney Client Fees
• Prescription Of Claims
• Professional Services
• Trust Account Liability
• Attorney-client-fees
• Prescription-of-claims

Bennetto v Dreyer and Nieuwoudt (A3101/2022)

Bennetto v Dreyer and Nieuwoudt (A3101/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1365 (24 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3101/2022

Judges

R. Strydom, L. Adams

The court found that the Mandate Agreement clearly distinguished between interim accounts, final accounts, and detailed specified accounts. Interim accounts were not required to contain detailed descriptions or time spent; such information was only necessary in the final or detailed specified account. The respondent complied with the Mandate Agreement by providing interim accounts and, upon request, a detailed specified account. The appellant's interpretation was incorrect, and his dissatisfaction stemmed from a misunderstanding of the agreement's terms. The evidence showed that fees were cha…

Source excerpt

• Attorney Client Fees
• Contractual Interpretation
• Consumer Protection Act
• Estoppel
• Costs Award

Dyongo v Road Accident Fund (2465/2021)

Dyongo v Road Accident Fund (2465/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 56 (4 May 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2465/2021

Judge

Tilana-Mabece

The court found that the contingency fee agreements in both matters failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997. Specifically, the agreements were not entered into with the legal practitioner as required, but rather with the law firms as juristic persons. Furthermore, the agreements were not in the prescribed form and lacked proper judicial oversight prior to acceptance of settlement offers, as required by section 4 of the Act. The statutory provisions are peremptory, and any non-compliance renders the agreements invalid and unenforceable. Consequen…

Source excerpt

• Contingency Fees Act
• Invalid Contingency Fee Agreement
• Attorney Client Fees
• Judicial Oversight Of Settlement

Brenner Mills (PTY) Ltd v Taxing Master, High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria and Others; Ex Parte Vollmer and Others (6686/21; 3767/2020)

Brenner Mills (PTY) Ltd v Taxing Master, High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria and Others; Ex Parte Vollmer and Others (6686/21; 3767/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 1014 (23 December 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6686/21; 3767/2020

Judge

Francis-Subbiah

High Court review of taxation decisions on attorney-client fees, holding that non-litigious fee disputes belong to the Legal Practice Council and rejecting duplicated research costs.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Attorney Client Fees
• Contingency Fee Agreement
• Legal Practice Council Jurisdiction
• Duplication Of Work
• Reasonableness Of Legal Fees

Allison v Road Accident Fund (2975/2021)

Allison v Road Accident Fund (2975/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 52 (23 August 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2975/2021

Judge

Bloem

The High Court declared a contingency fees agreement invalid because it did not set out the attorney’s normal fees as required by the Contingency Fees Act.

• Contingency Fees Act
• Attorney Client Fees
• Invalid Agreement
• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Contingency-fees-act
• Attorney-client-fees

Moodliyar & Bedhesi Attorneys v Madatt and Another (11188/15)

Moodliyar & Bedhesi Attorneys v Madatt and Another (11188/15) [2022] ZAGPJHC 630 (18 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11188/15

Judge

Olivier

High Court prescription ruling on attorney fees: personal-capacity claim survives, but the representative-capacity claim against the parents is dismissed.

• Prescription Act
• Attorney Client Fees
• Mandate Termination
• Joinder Of Parties
• Prescription
• Attorney-client-fees

Ramsay Webber Incorporated v Anastassopoulos (2020/30563)

Ramsay Webber Incorporated v Anastassopoulos (2020/30563) [2022] ZAGPJHC 479 (25 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/30563

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to redraw its bill of costs for taxation and claim a higher amount than originally invoiced, as there was no agreement or reservation of rights permitting such an increase. The facts did not align with the exception recognized in Hathorn, since the plaintiff's reservation of rights was made only after the final bill was rendered and did not expressly inform the defendant that a different bill would be prepared for taxation. The written mandate contained a non-variation clause, and no written variation was produced. The revised bill did not c…

Source excerpt

• Attorney Client Fees
• Taxation Of Costs
• Written Mandate
• Variation Of Contract
• Liquid Document

Baker & McKenzie Amsterdam N.V. v Gencorp Investments (Pty) Ltd (88431/2016)

Baker & McKenzie Amsterdam N.V. v Gencorp Investments (Pty) Ltd (88431/2016) [2021] ZAGPPHC 147 (12 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

88431/2016

Judge

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court held that GenCorp was bound by the legal services agreement and that Baker & McKenzie proved its fees were fair and reasonable.

• Contractual Liability
• Attorney Client Fees
• Fairness And Reasonableness Of Fees
• Authority To Contract
• Attorney-client-fees
• Authority-to-contract