South Africa Case Law

Grancy Property Limited and Another v Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala and Others (512/2022)

Grancy Property Limited and Another v Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala and Others (512/2022) [2024] ZASCA 144; 2025 (2) SA 76 (SCA) (23 October 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

512/2022

Judges

Schippers, Hughes, Goosen, Coppin, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Grancy was entitled to the economic benefit of half the additional Scharrig option shares allocated to the DGFT, as established by the Joffe Schedule and the terms of the Scharrig agreement. The Court found that Grancy had authorised the disposal of its initial and option shares at R5.75 per share in January 2006 and had accepted the proceeds, negating claims of unauthorised sale or entitlement to higher damages based on the highest intermediate value principle. The Court rejected the application of the highest intermediate value rule, finding it foreign…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Quantification Of Damages
• Black Economic Empowerment
• Secret Profit Disgorgement
• Prescription
• In Duplum Rule

W.E Deane S.A (Pty) Ltd v Alborough and Others (16341/2021)

W.E Deane S.A (Pty) Ltd v Alborough and Others (16341/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 634 (14 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16341/2021

Judge

A Vorster

The High Court dismissed exceptions to particulars of claim alleging breach of employment duties and unlawful competition, holding the claims were not bad in law on the pleadings.

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Restraint Of Trade
• Unlawful Competition
• Employment Contracts
• Damages
• Misuse Of Confidential Information

Botha v 4D Health (Pty) Ltd (18976/2019)

Botha v 4D Health (Pty) Ltd (18976/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 385 (26 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18976/2019

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that Ms. Botha failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she is a contingent creditor of 4D Health. The affidavits did not provide sufficient evidence of a pre-existing contractual obligation between Ms. Botha and 4D Health, nor did they demonstrate that 4D Health was party to any agreement breached in a manner giving rise to creditor status. The existence of the alleged debt is bona fide disputed on reasonable grounds, and the pending litigation cannot be used to confer locus standi for winding-up. The court applied the Plascon-Evans principle, considering the…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Solvent Company
• Contingent Creditor
• Locus Standi
• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty

South African Legal Practice Council v Setati (570/2022)

South African Legal Practice Council v Setati (570/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 207 (13 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

570/2022

Judges

N Davis, J L Bhengu

The respondent breached his fiduciary duties by investing estate funds in an unlisted, dubious investment, failed to account for the funds, and depleted the estate to the prejudice of a minor beneficiary. He repeatedly practised without fidelity fund certificates and failed to maintain proper books of account, despite multiple opportunities to rectify his conduct. His persistent dishonesty, lack of transparency, and disregard for professional obligations demonstrate that he is no longer fit and proper to practise law. The protection of the public and the integrity of the profession require hi…

Source excerpt

• Legal Practitioner Striking Off
• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Failure To Account
• Trust Account Mismanagement
• Legal Practice Act
• Minor Beneficiary Prejudice

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Zulu and Others (GP/04/2022)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Zulu and Others (GP/04/2022) [2023] ZAST 15 (13 November 2023)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP/04/2022

Judge

S Naidoo

The Tribunal found that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to enable the defendants to respond, including Zulu's duties, the schedule of payments, and the nature of the alleged secret profits. The Tribunal held that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to plead the specific role Zulu played in the awarding of contracts, as such matters are for evidence at trial. The claims against Commodity Logistics and Siba, while not elegantly worded, were found to be sufficiently linked to the alleged corrupt relationship and payments. The Tribunal concluded that the exceptions would not dispo…

Source excerpt

• Exception Procedure
• Pleading Requirements
• Joint And Several Liability
• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Secret Profits
• Debate Of Account

Oaker and Others v Kriel NO ; Rockland Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Kriel NO and Others (118/2021; 185/2022)

Oaker and Others v Kriel NO ; Rockland Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Kriel NO and Others (118/2021; 185/2022) [2023] ZASCA 68 (17 May 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

118/2021; 185/2022

Judges

Ponnan, Gorven, Mabindla-Boqwana, Nhlangulela, Olsen

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a stay application and dismissed the appeal, while upholding the cross-appeal in a curatorship dispute involving fiduciary breaches and corporate opportunity diversion.

• Curatorship
• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Diversion Of Corporate Opportunity
• Excessive Management Fees
• Option Cancellation
• Trust Law

Vital Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Pringle (2019/7031)

Vital Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Pringle (2019/7031) [2023] ZAGPJHC 505 (18 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/7031

Judge

S Yacoob

The court found that the defendant, while acting as managing director, instructed the payment of legal fees for his personal matter from company funds without board authority, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty. The applicant's evidence, including witness statements and supporting documents, was accepted as credible and unchallenged. The defendant's version was rejected due to lack of substantiation and failure to testify. The quantum of damages was proved on a balance of probabilities. The court held that the applicant was entitled to recover the full amount paid, with interest, and cos…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Director Liability
• Damages For Unauthorised Payments
• Commercial Court Practice
• Mora Interest

South African Legal Practice Council v Mangolela and Another (91612/2021)

South African Legal Practice Council v Mangolela and Another (91612/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 916 (23 November 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

91612/2021

Judges

K J Mogale, N Jansen van Niewenhuizen

Attorney struck from the roll after findings of trust-fund misappropriation, overreaching, poor accounting, and breach of a suspension order.

• Legal Practitioners Discipline
• Misappropriation Of Trust Funds
• Overreaching
• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Curatorship
• Removal From Roll

W E Deane SA (Pty) Ltd v Alborough and Others (16341/2021)

W E Deane SA (Pty) Ltd v Alborough and Others (16341/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 531 (20 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16341/2021

Judge

N Davis

The High Court upheld exceptions to a pleading seeking repayment of directors’ salaries and bonuses, finding enrichment and fraud were not properly pleaded.

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Director Liability
• Exception To Pleadings
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Exception-to-pleadings

Mirchandani v Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd and Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd v Mirchandani (802/2020, 813/2020)

Mirchandani v Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd and Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd v Mirchandani (802/2020, 813/2020) [2022] ZASCA 58 (22 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

802/2020, 813/2020

Judges

Saldulker, Mocumie, Mbatha, Tsoka, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd failed to prove that the profit share agreement contained any express, tacit, or implied term requiring compliance with NEMA. The evidence showed that non-compliance with environmental legislation was a deliberate decision made by all directors, not solely by Mr Mirchandani. The claim for damages based on breach of fiduciary duty and reliance on s 218 of the Companies Act was not properly pleaded, prejudicing Mr Mirchandani and violating procedural fairness. The lease agreements were found to be valid and binding, with the ac…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Profit Share Agreement
• Lease Agreement
• Damages
• National Environmental Management Act
• Companies Act Liability