South Africa Case Law

Seal A Deal CC t/a Makhafola Khaflins Transport and Another v Attorney Fidelity Fund Board and Another (30326/2018)

Seal A Deal CC t/a Makhafola Khaflins Transport and Another v Attorney Fidelity Fund Board and Another (30326/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 850 (27 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30326/2018

Judge

Erasmus

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was unduly prolix, repetitive, and lacked clarity. The applicants failed to establish reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for leave to appeal. The main issue argued was whether entrusted money to attorneys constitutes a debt under the Attorneys Act. The court aligned itself with previous judgments confirming that entrusted money is a debt and found no reason to deviate from this interpretation. The applicants did not provide substantive arguments to challenge this finding. The court also found no basis to interfere wit…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal Test
• Attorneys Act Section 26
• Prescription Act Interpretation
• Costs Order
• Entrusted Money As Debt

Leysath v Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control (770/2021)

Leysath v Legal Practitioners' Fidelity Fund Board of Control (770/2021) [2022] ZASCA 115 (28 July 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

770/2021

Judges

Petse, Zondi, Mabindla-Boqwana, Smith, Savage

The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that clients paid specified sums to Costa Attorneys as cover for his fees. The evidence relied upon was hearsay, lacking confirmatory affidavits from the clients, and was of doubtful probative value. The court found that the appellant did not establish the necessary factual foundation for reimbursement under section 26 of the Attorneys Act. Without sufficient proof of entrustment, the claim could not succeed. The court further held that the interests of justice did not warrant admission of the hearsay evidence, and that the respondent woul…

Source excerpt

• Attorneys Act Section 26
• Fidelity Fund Claims
• Entrustment Of Funds
• Onus Of Proof
• Hearsay Evidence
• Pecuniary Loss

Soft Coffee (Pty) Limited and Others v Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund (88809/2019)

Soft Coffee (Pty) Limited and Others v Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund (88809/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 228 (5 April 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

88809/2019

Judge

Khashane Manamela

The court found that in respect of Claim A, the payments made by Soft Coffee into Dadic Attorneys' trust account were pursuant to loan agreements intended for onward payment to third-party borrowers, with Dadic Attorneys acting as a conduit. The agreements did not reflect any intention for Dadic Attorneys to hold the funds in trust for Soft Coffee, and the payments were made to discharge contractual obligations under the loan agreements. The fraudulent nature of the transactions did not alter the character of the instructions or create entrustment. Therefore, the Fund's liability was excluded…

Source excerpt

• Attorneys Act Section 26
• Entrustment Of Funds
• Investment Exclusion
• Trust Account Liability
• Fraudulent Misappropriation

King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control (878/2002)

King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control (878/2002) [2007] ZAECHC 72 (18 October 2007)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

878/2002

Judge

Plasket

Leave to appeal was refused after the court held that funds placed with attorneys were invested for profit and fell within the Attorneys Act exclusion.

• Attorneys Act Section 26
• Attorneys Act Section 47
• Standing
• Costs Of Counsel
• Attorneys-act-section-47
• Leave-to-appeal

Attorneys Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund v Tony Allem (Pty) Ltd. and Another (274/87)

Attorneys Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund v Tony Allem (Pty) Ltd. and Another (274/87) [1990] ZASCA 5; 1990 (2) SA 665 (AD); (2 March 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

274/87

Judges

Joubert, Van Heerden, Nestadt, Milne, F H Grosskopf

The court held that money entrusted to an attorney for client loans fell within section 26 of the Attorneys Act and upheld Fidelity Fund liability.

• Attorneys Act Section 26
• Fidelity Fund Liability
• Pecuniary Loss By Theft
• Time Bar Under Attorneys Act
• Interest A Tempore Morae
• Attorneys-act