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
Andzanimikula Trading (Pty) Ltd v TCI-TISO RF (Pty) Ltd (2021/17889) [2025] ZAGPJHC 655 (17 March 2025)
The High Court held that the defendant could not deduct a 5% penalty under clause 8.1; the clause provided for interest only. Judgment went to the plaintiff.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Moremedi (666/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 118 (13 December 2024)
The High Court held that the respondent was unjustly enriched after receiving and using bank funds paid in error, and ordered repayment with interest and costs.
Aggenbach v Wessels (1696/21) [2024] ZANWHC 170 (3 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim in an unjust enrichment dispute over life insurance proceeds and ordered the defendant to plead.
Alert Steel (Pty) Ltd v Mercantile Bank Ltd (165/21) [2022] ZASCA 96 (21 June 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a liquidator’s claim to recover sale proceeds paid to a secured creditor, holding that enrichment was not proved.
Sol Plaatje Municipality v Technofin (Pty) Ltd (2230/2014;34/2020) [2022] ZANCHC 14 (18 March 2022)
The appeal was upheld on the basis that the trial court erred in equating the quantum of enrichment to the contract price in the invalid lease agreement. The court found that the contract price is not the appropriate benchmark for determining enrichment under condictio sine causa, as it includes profit, which is not recoverable. The correct measure is the reasonable market value of the use and occupation of the equipment, which was established by expert evidence to be significantly less than the contract price. The court held that the quantum of enrichment is the lesser of the enrichment or i…
Source excerpt
Naidoo v Plomp and Another (8703/2019) [2020] ZAKZDHC 31 (19 June 2020)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, as pleaded, establish a prima facie case for unjust enrichment under condictio indebiti. The plaintiff clearly elected to rely on his bona fide but mistaken belief as the cause for the transfer of shares, which was made without legal or natural obligation. The court found that the requirements for condictio indebiti were sufficiently alleged, and the defendants had adequate particularity to plead their defence. The exception was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the defendants.
Source excerpt
Naidoo v Plomp and Another (8703/2019) [2020] ZAKZDHC 16 (19 June 2020)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, as pleaded, establish a prima facie case for unjust enrichment under the condictio indebiti. The plaintiff transferred shares to the first defendant without legal obligation, relying on a bona fide but mistaken belief that an agreement would be reached regarding his exit from the company. The court found that the plaintiff had elected to rely on condictio indebiti, and the facts pleaded were sufficient to support this cause of action. The distinction between condictio indebiti and condictio sine causa was material, and the plaintiff's…
Source excerpt
Ergo Mining (Pty) Limited v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2014/45277) [2020] ZAGPJHC 134; [2020] 3 All SA 445 (GJ) (8 June 2020)
The court held that the amendments sought by Ergo Mining are necessary to clarify and ventilate the real issues in dispute regarding the supply and charging of electricity by the Municipality. The factual matrix pleaded is relevant to the determination of whether the Municipality was licensed to supply electricity and whether any consumer agreement was lawful. The court found that the amendments do not introduce new debts for prescription purposes but rather clarify the basis of the existing claim, consistent with the principles in Mazibuko, Evins, and Oneanate. The objections raised by the M…
Source excerpt
J D Botha and Sons Signs (Pty) Limited v Multi Cranes and Platforms (Pty) Limited (A3049/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 522; 2024 (4) SA 583 (GJ) (13 December 2019)
High Court appeal about unjust enrichment for crane repairs. The court held the respondent proved enrichment and dismissed the appeal, correcting the award to R81,961.60.
Sanprosa (Pty) Limited v Petersen N.O and Others (45197/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 182 (21 May 2019)
The High Court dismissed an exception in a rental-enrichment dispute, holding that the plaintiff had pleaded a sufficient cause of action and locus standi.
Explore more
