South Africa Case Law

Hill N.O and Another v Liberty Group Limited and Others (M 653/2022)

Hill N.O and Another v Liberty Group Limited and Others (M 653/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 316 (11 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M653/2022

Judge

Morgan

The court found that the liquidators failed to establish that the funds from which the impugned payment was made factually and lawfully belonged to Aurita CC. The evidence presented did not refute Makelaars CC's version that the funds were received in error and did not form part of the insolvent estate. The liquidators did not file a replying affidavit to address these averments, nor did they join necessary parties such as Reynecke and de Beer, who had direct and substantial interests in the outcome. The principles of commixtio and mistaken payments dictate that erroneous deposits do not conf…

Source excerpt

• Liquidation Proceedings
• Void Dispositions
• Joinder Of Parties
• Commixtio
• Mistaken Payments

De Magalhaes v Christensen N.O. and Another (2020/13195)

De Magalhaes v Christensen N.O. and Another (2020/13195) [2022] ZAGPJHC 504 (27 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/13195

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The applicant failed to prove valid title to the disability policy benefit funds, as the policy owner and beneficiary was the insolvent, and no cession to the applicant was established. However, the court found that section 63 of the Long Term Insurance Act protects such policy benefits from attachment, and this protection survives transfer to the spouse whose disability triggered the benefit. Regarding the proceeds from the sale of the Simons Town property, the applicant provided sufficient documentary evidence and unrefuted testimony of ownership and acquisition with her own funds, despite…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 21
• Long Term Insurance Act Section 63
• Onus Of Proof
• Release Of Attached Property
• Commixtio
• Ownership Of Sale Proceeds

Argent Industrial Limited v Gainsford NO and Others (AR473/2015)

Argent Industrial Limited v Gainsford NO and Others (AR473/2015) [2018] ZAKZPHC 37 (27 August 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR473/2015

Judges

D Pillay, Jappie, Henriques

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

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Voidable Disposition
• Unjust Enrichment
• Banking Liability
• Trustee Authority
• Commixtio

Ex parte: National Director of Public Prosecutions (1540/2018)

Ex parte: National Director of Public Prosecutions (1540/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 100 (12 June 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1540/2018

Judge

J P Daffue

The court found that the NDPP failed to establish reasonable grounds that the funds preserved in Baroda's Nedbank account were the proceeds of unlawful activities. The evidence showed no direct link between the alleged proceeds and the preserved funds, as the account was a pool account containing deposits from various customers. The principles of commixtio and the bank/customer relationship dictate that once funds are deposited, they lose individual identity and become the property of the bank. The NDPP did not seek to preserve Estina's personal right in its account but rather Baroda's Nedban…

Source excerpt

• Preservation Order
• Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities
• Bank Customer Relationship
• Commixtio
• Money Laundering
• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration

Body Corporate of Fucia Gardens and Others v Bakenkop (Pty) Ltd t/a Wierda and Others (50444/2007)

Body Corporate of Fucia Gardens and Others v Bakenkop (Pty) Ltd t/a Wierda and Others (50444/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 103 (4 April 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

50444/2007

Judge

Makhafola

The court held that levies collected by an estate agent remained trust monies, even though they were paid into a business account, and ordered payment to the applicants.

• Trust Monies
• Estate Agent Liquidation
• Preferential Creditor Status
• Management Agreement
• Commixtio
• Insolvency Distribution

Louw NO and Others v Coetzee and Others (342/02)

Louw NO and Others v Coetzee and Others (342/02) [2002] ZASCA 156; [2003] 1 All SA 34 (SCA); 2003 (3) SA 329 (SCA) (29 November 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

342/02

Judges

Howie, Streicher, Mpati, Jones, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that attorneys’ trust deposits at a bank did not become protected trust property under the 2001 Act.

• Attorneys Trust Accounts
• Financial Institutions Protection Of Funds Act
• Meaning Of Trust Property
• Bank Liquidation
• Commixtio
• Statutory Interpretation

Trojan Exploration Company Proprietary Ltd. and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd. and Others (609/94)

Trojan Exploration Company Proprietary Ltd. and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd. and Others (609/94) [1996] ZASCA 74; 1996 (4) SA 499 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 121 (A); (31 May 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

609/94

Judges

Botha, Van Heerden, Nestadt, Schutz, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the rights to precious metals and base metals, as split in the 1966 cession, must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning and the common law. The holder of precious metals rights may mine ore containing base metals, but is not entitled to appropriate and sell the base metals for its own exclusive benefit. Co-ownership arises upon severance of ore containing both types of minerals, and the rights of each holder must be exercised civiliter modo. The mixing of ores and subsequent sale by the precious metals holder does not extinguish the base meta…

Source excerpt

• Mineral Rights
• Co Ownership Of Minerals
• Interpretation Of Mining Cessions
• By Products In Mining
• Statutory Interpretation
• Commixtio