South Africa Case Law

African Global Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lutchman N.O and Others; Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd v African Global Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (42741/19; 44827/19; 32083/19)

African Global Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Lutchman N.O and Others; Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd v African Global Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (42741/19; 44827/19; 32083/19) [2020] ZAGPJHC 355 (17 November 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42741/19; 44827/19; 32083/19

Judge

DP de Villiers

Leave to appeal is granted to all parties in respect of the auction application, business rescue application, and Rule 42 application due to the existence of conflicting judgments on key issues, the complexity and novelty of the matters, and the need for the Supreme Court of Appeal to resolve questions regarding the authority of provisional liquidators, the timing and effect of business rescue applications, and the interpretation of relevant court orders. The judgment acknowledges errors in the handling of interlocutory costs orders but determines that fairness requires all parties be granted…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Business Rescue
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Auction Sales
• Costs Orders
• Interpretation Of Court Orders

Hansa Silver (Pty) Ltd and Others v Obifon (Pty) Ltd t/a The High Street Auction Company (192/2014)

Hansa Silver (Pty) Ltd and Others v Obifon (Pty) Ltd t/a The High Street Auction Company (192/2014) [2015] ZASCA 54; 2015 (4) SA 17 (SCA) (30 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

192/2014

Judges

Navsa, Shongwe, Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Meyer

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the auctioneer's bids on behalf of the sellers did not constitute misrepresentation or fraud. The rules of the auction, which permitted vendor bidding up to the reserve price, were made available and read out to all bidders, including the appellants. The Consumer Protection Act requires only prior notice of vendor bidding, not contemporaneous identification of such bids. The regulations cited by the appellants do not apply to auctioneers bidding on behalf of sellers. The appellants, being experienced in auctions, were not misled or induced by any alleged…

Source excerpt

• Auction Sales
• Vendor Bidding
• Misrepresentation
• Consumer Protection Act
• Contractual Invalidity

Adendorff Auctioneers (Pty) Ltd. v Pretorius (300/88)

Adendorff Auctioneers (Pty) Ltd. v Pretorius (300/88) [1989] ZASCA 174 (5 December 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

300/88

Judges

Vivier, Joubert, Kumleben

The court held that ownership of auctioned vehicles passed to the buyer on delivery, so the auctioneer could not vindicate them from a later possessor.

• Ownership Transfer
• Auction Sales
• Credit Sales
• Passing Of Dominium
• Estoppel
• Auction-sales