South Africa Case Law

Royal Bafokeng Resources (Pty) Lyd and Others v Bambatha Engineering and Mining Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2266/2020)

Royal Bafokeng Resources (Pty) Lyd and Others v Bambatha Engineering and Mining Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2266/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 48 (2 June 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

2266/2020

Judge

T Djaje

The court dismissed exceptions to particulars of claim in a delictual action alleging conspiracy, bribery and fraud linked to a mining services contract.

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Aquilian Liability
• Conspiracy To Defraud
• Bribery And Corruption
• Money Laundering
• Economic Loss

Straton v Firstrand Bank Limited (20928 / 2013)

Straton v Firstrand Bank Limited (20928 / 2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 579 (30 July 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20928 / 2013

Judge

Mavundla

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim failed to disclose any cause of action. The alleged wrongfulness in the defendant's conduct of obtaining default judgment was not established, as the judgment was valid until set aside and the procedural rules cited by the plaintiff did not apply to motion proceedings. No legal duty was owed by the defendant to advise the plaintiff on the legality of the judgment, and no facts were pleaded to show negligence or breach of duty. The claims for pain and suffering and economic loss were unsupported by factual allegations required by Rule 1…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Pleadings
• Cause Of Action
• Wrongfulness
• Default Judgment
• Economic Loss

Paredes-Tarazona v Cobalt Capital (Pty) Ltd (2009/44215)

Paredes-Tarazona v Cobalt Capital (Pty) Ltd (2009/44215) [2012] ZAGPJHC 75 (23 April 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/44215

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

The plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Cobalt Capital (Pty) Ltd contracted with him or guaranteed payment of returns on the investment. The evidence of the plaintiff's own witnesses contradicted his version and supported the defendant's case that the plaintiff contracted directly with Rees. Documentary evidence further refuted the plaintiff's claim of a contract with Cobalt. The delictual claims were also dismissed as they depended on the existence of a contract, which was not established. Accordingly, the defendant was granted absolution from the instance and the…

Source excerpt

• Ponzi Scheme Liability
• Misrepresentation
• Duty Of Care
• Economic Loss
• Absolution From The Instance

RCG Trade & Finance (Pty) Ltd v Rowland (3955/2001)

RCG Trade & Finance (Pty) Ltd v Rowland (3955/2001) [2002] ZAFSHC 22; [2003] 1 All SA 732 (O) (12 December 2002)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3955/2001

Judge

Musi

The High Court upheld an exception to a negligent misstatement claim against auditors, finding the pleadings did not show a sufficient duty of care or specific third-party reliance.

• Negligent Misstatement
• Duty Of Care
• Economic Loss
• Unlawfulness
• Public Accountants And Auditors Act
• Negligent-misstatement

OK Bazaars 1929 Limited v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (278/2000)

OK Bazaars 1929 Limited v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (278/2000) [2002] ZASCA 5; 2002 (3) SA 688 (SCA) (12 March 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

278/2000

Judges

Nienaber, Zulman, Cameron, Navsa, Nugent

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a negligent misstatement by Hyperama’s employee caused Standard Bank’s loss and that later acceptance of discrepant documents did not break causation.

• Negligent Misstatement
• Economic Loss
• Letters Of Credit
• Causation
• Novus Actus Interveniens
• Negligent-misstatement

Minister of Law and Order v Kadir (246/93)

Minister of Law and Order v Kadir (246/93) [1994] ZASCA 138; 1995 (1) SA 303 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 457 (A) (29 September 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

246/93

Judges

J F Hefer, Nestadt, Nienaber, Van Den Heever, Harms

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the facts pleaded by the plaintiff did not prima facie support the existence of a legal duty owed by the police to the plaintiff to record information about the offending vehicle and its driver. The court distinguished the present case from Minister van Polisie v Ewels, noting that the omission in question was not directly related to the statutory duty to prevent crime, but rather to the collection of information that might assist a civil litigant. The court found that the functions of the police are primarily related to criminal matters and are not desig…

Source excerpt

• Wrongful Omission
• Legal Duty
• Economic Loss
• Exception Procedure

International Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd. v Bentley (138/89)

International Shipping Company (Pty) Ltd. v Bentley (138/89) [1989] ZASCA 138; [1990] 1 All SA 498 (A) (10 October 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

138/89

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Hefer, Smalberger, Friedman

The court held that an auditor negligently certified false financial statements, but the financier’s loss was too remote because later events broke causation.

• Negligent Misstatement
• Auditor Liability
• Causation
• Remoteness Of Damage
• Economic Loss
• Auditor-liability