Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Remitto (Pty) Ltd v Bresler Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Another - Leave to Appeal (2412/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 309 (3 August 2023)
Leave to appeal was dismissed in a dispute over R1.3 million paid by mistake into a liquidated company’s bank account, with the court finding no prospects of success.
Argent Industrial Limited v Gainsford NO and Others (AR473/2015) [2018] ZAKZPHC 37 (27 August 2018)
The court found that the GAT did not have title to the stolen money deposited into its account, except for the R630,000 which was not stolen. The payment from the GAT to Argent was not authorised by a majority of trustees and was inconsistent with the trust's purposes. The disposition to Argent within two years of the GAT's sequestration was not made for value and met the jurisdictional requirements of section 26 of the Insolvency Act, rendering it voidable. Argent failed to prove it acted as agent for SOC or that it was indemnified, as its mandate originated from within Argent and BMI, not S…
Source excerpt
Ixocure (Pty) Ltd v Firstrand Bank Ltd (19619/2014) [2017] ZAWCHC 139 (30 November 2017)
The court found that the transfer from Likhanyile to the plaintiff's account was provisional and never completed due to a hold placed following a fraud complaint. The evidence showed that the credit entry was conditional and not finalised, and the plaintiff's account was never validly credited with the disputed amount. The principle that a bank may not reverse a valid credit did not apply, as the transaction was never completed. The court further held that the representations relied upon by the plaintiff for estoppel were made by Likhanyile or its director, not by the bank, and that the plain…
Source excerpt
Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v Mettle Management Services (Pty) Ltd (2010/41913) [2013] ZAGPJHC 95 (17 April 2013)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim did not disclose sufficient averments to sustain a finding of wrongfulness or unlawfulness. The defendant, although instrumental in arranging and administering the debt securitisation scheme, was not a party to any of the transaction documents and owed no contractual obligations to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could have protected itself contractually but failed to do so. Public policy considerations and established legal principles dictate that Aquilian liability should not be extended to impose a duty of care on the defendant in these…
Source excerpt
Placecol Cosmetics (Pty) Ltd v Absa Bank Ltd and Another, Absa Bank Ltd v UTi South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Mounties Division) (08/34502, 10/04104) [2012] ZAGPJHC 193 (4 October 2012)
High Court granted Absa’s application to consolidate two cheque-fraud actions for one trial, citing convenience, overlapping evidence, and risk of inconsistent findings.
Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd. v Marnitz NO and Others (Stand 186 Aeroport (Pty) Ltd. Intervening) (27/2004) [2004] ZASCA 98; [2006] 4 All SA 120 (SCA); 2005 (1) SA 441 (SCA) (1 October 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Maple Freight CC was not entitled to the funds mistakenly transferred to its account, as there was no intention on the part of the appellant to pay Maple. Payment requires consensus, and the mistaken transfer did not confer entitlement on Maple. Any appropriation of the funds by Maple, with knowledge of the mistake, would constitute theft. The funds did not form part of Maple's insolvent estate, and the liquidators had no claim against Firstrand Bank in respect of the funds. The appellant was entitled to the return of the amount traced to the mistaken pay…
Source excerpt
Davids and Others v Absa Bank beperk (A15/03) [2004] ZAWCHC 17; [2005] 1 All SA 583 (C); 2005 (3) SA 361 (C) (19 April 2004)
The court found that the appellants signed the suretyship agreements under a material mistake regarding their scope, believing their liability was limited to R50,000. The respondent's representative, Mr Geldenhuys, failed to explain the nature and content of the complex, unlimited suretyship documents to the appellants, who had no prior dealings with the bank and did not participate in the negotiations. Given the circumstances, a reasonable person in the position of the bank's representative would not have been misled into believing the appellants intended to bind themselves to unlimited liab…
Source excerpt
Take & Save Trading CC and Others v The Standard Bank of SA Ltd (21/2003) [2004] ZASCA 1; 2004 (4) SA 1 (SCA); [2004] 1 All SA 597 (SCA) (27 February 2004)
The SCA held that the trial judge’s intervention and comments did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The appeal against refusal of recusal was dismissed with costs.
Absa Bank Ltd. v Standard Bank of SA Ltd. (578/95) [1997] ZASCA 71; 1998 (1) SA 242 (SCA); [1997] 4 All SA 673 (A); (14 September 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Absa was enriched by payment on a forged cheque because the provisional credit to Horn’s overdraft never became final.
Explore more
