South Africa Case Law

Breetzke and Others NNO v Alexander NO and Others (232/2019)

Breetzke and Others NNO v Alexander NO and Others (232/2019) [2020] ZASCA 97; [2020] 4 All SA 374 (GP); 2020 (6) SA 360 (SCA) (2 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

232/2019

Judges

Wallis, Mbha, Mocumie, Molemela, Dlodlo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a company which knowingly participates in a trustee's breach of fiduciary duty, and benefits from that breach, is liable in delict to the beneficiaries for losses arising from the breach. The court found that the allegation of knowing participation suffices to plead wrongfulness, and that the particulars of claim against Ziningi Properties (Pty) Ltd were not excipiable. The court relied on established authority, including Yorkshire Insurance and Gross v Pentz, confirming that joint liability arises where a third party knowingly aids or facilitates a breac…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Knowing Participation In Breach Of Trust
• Pure Economic Loss
• Wrongfulness In Delict
• Corporate Separateness
• Exception Procedure

Breetzke N.O v Alexander and Others (12922/2014P)

Breetzke N.O v Alexander and Others (12922/2014P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 64 (9 November 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

12922/2014P

Judge

Vahed

The High Court upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim, finding no sufficient delictual case against the second defendant for pure economic loss.

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Pure Economic Loss
• Fiduciary Duty
• Corporate Separateness
• Wrongfulness
• Lex Aquilia

Vodacom Service Provider Company (Pty) Ltd and Another v National Consumer Commission (NCT/2793/2011/101 (1)(P))

Vodacom Service Provider Company (Pty) Ltd and Another v National Consumer Commission (NCT/2793/2011/101 (1)(P)) [2012] ZANCT 9 (8 June 2012)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/2793/2011/101 (1)(P)

Judges

T Woker, F K Manamela, N Sephoti

The Tribunal cancelled a compliance notice against Vodacom, finding it was issued to the wrong party, without a reasonable basis, and without proper consultation.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice Review
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Procedural Fairness
• Corporate Separateness
• Consumer-protection-act

Melomed Hospital Holdings Ltd v Dr. Adrian Burger Incorporated (A428/11)

Melomed Hospital Holdings Ltd v Dr. Adrian Burger Incorporated (A428/11) [2012] ZAWCHC 88 (15 March 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A428/11

Judges

Samela, Hlophe, Davis

High Court appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to prove it was a creditor and therefore lacked locus standi to seek provisional liquidation.

• Locus Standi
• Provisional Liquidation
• Creditor Status
• Administration Fees
• Corporate Separateness
• Locus-standi

Wambach v Maizecor Industries (Edms) Bpk (505/1991)

Wambach v Maizecor Industries (Edms) Bpk (505/1991) [1993] ZASCA 28; 1993 (2) SA 669 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 158 (A) (11 March 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

505/1991

Judges

Van Heerden, Smalberger, Eksteen, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller

The court held that the respondent failed to prove ownership of the vehicles and therefore lacked locus standi. The appeal succeeded and absolution was granted.

• Locus Standi
• Corporate Separateness
• Burden Of Proof
• Absolution From The Instance
• Corporate-separateness
• Locus-standi