William Darier t/a Urban Soccer v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (18085/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 829 (13 August 2024)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
18085/2020
Judge
Nyathi
The High Court held that a municipal lease addendum concluded after termination of the original lease was invalid for non-compliance with procurement law.
South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Another v Lornavision (Pty) Ltd (49514/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 299 (19 March 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
49514/2017
Judge
Dosio
The court found that the written services agreement between the SABC and Lornavision was declared unlawful and void ab initio, requiring restitution of the full amount paid under the contract. Lornavision failed to file a plea and thus could not oppose the default judgment application. The affidavits of Ms Tladi and Mr Daniels, which quantified the loss and confirmed the lack of benefit to the SABC, were accepted as uncontested evidence. Technical objections to the commissioning of affidavits were dismissed, as substantial compliance was established and supplementary affidavits were provided.…
Terer Beleggings (Pty) Ltd v Houghamdale Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (2567/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 112 (17 October 2023)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Case number
2567/2021
Judge
Govindjee
The court found that both parties intended for the sale and transfer of the entire immovable property, not merely an undivided portion. The evidence, including the power of attorney and deed of transfer, demonstrated a clear intention to transfer ownership of the whole property. The abstract system of transfer in South African law means that ownership passes upon registration if there is a real agreement, regardless of defects in the underlying contract. The plaintiff failed to prove present ownership and thus could not succeed with a vindicatory claim. The alternative claim, based on absence…
Fluxmans Incorporated v Levenson (523/2015) [2016] ZASCA 183; [2017] 1 All SA 313 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 520 (SCA) (29 November 2016)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
523/2015
Judges
Mpati, Theron, Zondi, Van Der Merwe, Makgoka
The majority of the Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription begins to run when the creditor has knowledge of the facts necessary to institute action, not when the creditor becomes aware of the legal invalidity of the agreement. The respondent knew all the material facts regarding the contingency fee agreement and the payment of fees by 20 August 2008, even if he did not appreciate the legal consequences. The knowledge that the agreement did not comply with the Contingency Fees Act is a legal conclusion, not a fact required to complete the cause of action. Therefore, the respondent's cl…
Griffiths v Janse van Rensburg NO (20269/2014) [2015] ZASCA 158; [2016] 1 All SA 643 (SCA); 2016 (3) SA 389 (SCA) (26 October 2015)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
20269/2014
Judges
Shongwe, Pillay, Petse, Saldulker, Gorven
The SCA held that repayments from an unlawful pyramid scheme were not made in the ordinary course of business and upheld setting them aside under insolvency law.
Nuance Investments (Pty) Ltd v Maghilda Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (15914/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 683 (23 September 2015)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
15914/2012
Judge
D S Fourie
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s R60 million enrichment claim was prescribed, found illegal land-sale arrangements void, and upheld rectification of the Deeds Registry.
Section 89(5)(b) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 is constitutionally invalid because it mandates courts to order the refund of all amounts paid under an unlawful credit agreement, without any discretion. This results in arbitrary deprivation of property, as the law is procedurally unfair and does not allow consideration of relevant circumstances such as the conduct of the parties, financial positions, or the extent of enrichment. The availability of an unjustified enrichment claim does not cure the arbitrariness, as restitution is not guaranteed and may be subject to the par delictum ru…
Levenson v Fluxmans Incorporated (14/27502) [2015] ZAGPJHC 48; 2015 (3) SA 361 (GJ) (27 March 2015)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
14/27502
Judge
Windell
The court found that the contingency fee agreement between the applicant and respondent was invalid as it did not comply with the formalities required by the Contingency Fees Act. The applicant's claim for repayment of fees was not prescribed, as he only acquired the necessary knowledge of the facts giving rise to the debt in 2014 following the Constitutional Court's judgment on contingency fee agreements. The court held that motion proceedings were appropriate for the declaratory relief sought, as the facts were common cause and the illegality of the agreement was established. Any factual di…
Levenson v Fluxmans Incorporated (14/27503) [2015] ZAGPJHC 68 (27 March 2015)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
14/27503
Judge
Windell
The court found that the contingency fee agreement between the applicant and respondent was invalid as it did not comply with the formalities required by the Contingency Fees Act. The respondent conceded the invalidity. The applicant's claim for repayment of fees was not prescribed, as he only acquired the necessary knowledge of the invalidity in 2014 following the Constitutional Court's judgment. The court distinguished between knowledge of facts and knowledge of legal conclusions, holding that the applicant's initial suspicion did not amount to knowledge sufficient to trigger prescription.…
SSI/Tshepega Joint Venture v MEC: Free State Provincial Government: Department of Police, Roads and Transport (393/2012, 4352/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 4 (29 January 2015)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
393/2012 & 4352/2013
Judge
L.B.J. Moeng
The court held that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to identify a specific condictio in its enrichment claim. What is required is that the pleadings, when read as a whole, disclose the essential elements of an enrichment claim: enrichment of the defendant, impoverishment of the plaintiff, enrichment at the plaintiff's expense, and unjustified enrichment. The plaintiff's amended and alternative claims were formulated in response to the defendant's plea of illegality and invalidity, and they sufficiently cover both scenarios. The pleadings set out the factual basis for the enrichment clai…
