South Africa Case Law

Universal Transport and Allied Workers Union v Tlhomphanang Business Enterprises t/a TNG Security Services (2024-044666)

Universal Transport and Allied Workers Union v Tlhomphanang Business Enterprises t/a TNG Security Services (2024-044666) [2025] ZAGPPHC 768 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-044666

Judge

J Vorster

The High Court upheld an exception in part, finding the plaintiff had not pleaded the specific statutory non-compliance said to make a labour agreement void.

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Closed Shop Agreement
• Pleading Vagueness
• Undue Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Vague-and-embarrassing

Glenhazel Investment (Pty) Ltd v Barbaglia N.O and Others (2023/055003)

Glenhazel Investment (Pty) Ltd v Barbaglia N.O and Others (2023/055003) [2025] ZAGPJHC 738 (25 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/055003

Judge

M P Motha

The High Court referred a deposit dispute to trial after finding a material factual dispute over a trustee’s authority to bind a trust in a property sale.

• Trustee Authority
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Unjust Enrichment
• Specific Performance
• Condictio Indebiti
• Trust-law

Imbani Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Homsek (Pty) Ltd and Others (5544/2018)

Imbani Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Homsek (Pty) Ltd and Others (5544/2018) [2025] ZAFSHC 205 (4 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5544/2018

Judge

Van Rhyn

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment sought to introduce two distinct and mutually exclusive causes of action—one based on unjustified enrichment and the other on a repayment agreement—without pleading them in the alternative. South African law requires that such inconsistent claims be pleaded in the alternative to avoid excipiability. The amendment, as formulated, would render the particulars of claim excipiable and cause prejudice to the respondents. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the amendment, holding that the claims cannot co-exist as a single cause of ac…

Source excerpt

• Pleadings Amendment
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Contractual Claims
• Alternativity Of Remedies

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (PTY) Ltd (041/2024)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (PTY) Ltd (041/2024) [2025] ZASCA 65 (20 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

041/2024

Judges

Mocumie, Kgoele, Baartman, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription began to run when Wamjay acquired knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute its claim, which occurred on 5 October 2012 when UJ communicated its repudiation and cancellation of the lease and cession agreement. The court rejected Wamjay's argument that prescription only commenced upon the Constitutional Court's judgment, finding that legal certainty or a legal conclusion is not required for prescription to begin. The exception for professional negligence claims against legal practitioners, as articulated in Le Roux, does not apply…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Professional Negligence Exception

ABSA Bank Limited v Ummi Properties (Pty) Ltd (627/2017; 71053/16)

ABSA Bank Limited v Ummi Properties (Pty) Ltd (627/2017; 71053/16) [2025] ZAGPPHC 603 (14 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

627/2017; 71053/16

Judges

S Mfenyana, A Basson, M Kumalo

High Court appeal against summary judgment. The court found triable issues over a loan account, alleged overpayments, and debt extinguishment, and set aside summary judgment.

• Summary Judgment
• Condonation
• Loan Agreement
• Condictio Indebiti
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Summary-judgment

Hindustan Products SA (Pty) Ltd v Gertenbach and Another (2023/107680)

Hindustan Products SA (Pty) Ltd v Gertenbach and Another (2023/107680) [2025] ZAGPJHC 108 (10 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/107680

Judge

N S Krüger

The High Court referred an unjustified-enrichment claim to trial after finding unresolved disputes about whether an heir was enriched by a deceased estate.

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Inheritance Liability
• Litis Contestatio
• Motion Vs Action Procedure
• Unjustified-enrichment

Distedu Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (28867/2019)

Distedu Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (28867/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1134 (4 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28867/2019

Judge

N Davis

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim against Distedu Holdings (Pty) Ltd were sufficiently clear and pleaded all necessary elements for both the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causa and a general enrichment claim. The complaints raised in the exception regarding vagueness and lack of cause of action were unfounded, as the absence of a valid agreement, enrichment, and impoverishment were expressly pleaded. The facts closely resembled those in Perry, where the Supreme Court of Appeal held that recipients of laundered or misappropriated funds may be liable once they have kn…

Source excerpt

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causa
• Condictio Indebiti
• Municipal Infrastructure Grants
• Pleading Exception
• General Enrichment Claim

Scott-Williams v Old Mutual Life Assurance Company of South Africa (AR 542/17)

Scott-Williams v Old Mutual Life Assurance Company of South Africa (AR 542/17) [2024] ZAKZPHC 75 (16 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 542/17

Judges

Z P Nkosi, Chili

The court found that the respondent, as administrator of the ICS pension fund, acted in a fiduciary and representative capacity and was liable to refund the ICS for the overpayment made to the appellant. The respondent's patrimony was reduced by this liability, satisfying the requirement that the plaintiff be impoverished. The appellant was enriched by the payment, and the enrichment was at the expense of the respondent, not the ICS, as the respondent bore the loss. The court held that the respondent had locus standi to institute the condictio indebiti action and that the excusability of erro…

Source excerpt

• Condictio Indebiti
• Unjust Enrichment
• Locus Standi
• Fiduciary Duty

Mhlari NO and Others v Nedbank Limited (251/2023)

Mhlari NO and Others v Nedbank Limited (251/2023) [2024] ZASCA 39 (4 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

251/2023

Judges

Gorven, Matojane, Coppin, Smith, Keightley

The SCA held that a trust loan was void for lack of trustee capacity, but Nedbank’s unjust enrichment claim succeeded because its mistake was reasonable and excusable.

• Unjust Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Condictio Sine Causa Specialis
• Trustee Capacity
• Prescription Act
• Mortgage Bond Cancellation

DBM Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2022/047685)

DBM Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2022/047685) [2024] ZAGPPHC 268 (14 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/047685

Judge

SST Kholong

The High Court held that DBM Property Investments could recover an excess municipal payment made in error under condictio indebiti.

• Condictio Indebiti
• Municipal Rates And Taxes
• Ultra Vires Payment
• Mistaken Payment
• Municipal Clearance Certificate
• Condictio-indebiti