South Africa Case Law

Intengo Imoto (Pty) Ltd t/a Northcliff Nissan v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers CC t/a Hyundai Louis Trichardt (474/2024)

Intengo Imoto (Pty) Ltd t/a Northcliff Nissan v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers CC t/a Hyundai Louis Trichardt (474/2024) [2025] ZASCA 93 (20 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

474/2024

Judges

Zondi, Mothle, Weiner, Kathree-Setiloane, Coppin

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a purchaser who paid into a fraudulent account after failing to verify bank details had not discharged its payment obligation.

• Payment Obligation
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Business Email Compromise
• Risk Of Loss
• Contract Breach
• Electronic-funds-transfer

Gripper & Company (Pty) Ltd v Ganedhi Trading Enterprises CC (4725/2024)

Gripper & Company (Pty) Ltd v Ganedhi Trading Enterprises CC (4725/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 352; 2025 (3) SA 279 (WCC) (6 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4725/2024

Judge

M W Janisch

The High Court held that a debtor who pays a fraudulent bank account without proper verification remains liable for the debt, and ordered payment of the purchase price plus interest and costs.

• Payment Obligation
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Debtor Risk
• Estoppel
• Electronic-funds-transfer

Motor City Auto Spares (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sheriff Vanderbijlpark and Others (2021/53966)

Motor City Auto Spares (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sheriff Vanderbijlpark and Others (2021/53966) [2024] ZAGPJHC 25 (17 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/53966

Judge

Mahomed

The court found that payment by electronic funds transfer made on the day of the sale, even if only reflected in the sheriff's account the next day, satisfies the obligation to pay under the conditions of sale, unless the conditions specifically require same-day reflection and provide the necessary banking details. The judgment does not conflict with Chikalala, as the facts and interpretation differ. The sheriff's acceptance of delayed payment and differential treatment of buyers was scrutinised, but the court held that the obligation to pay was discharged when proof of payment was produced.…

Source excerpt

• Sale In Execution
• Payment Of Deposit
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Tacit Terms In Contract
• Unfair Treatment Of Buyers

Andre Kock en Seun Vrystaat (Pty) Ltd v Willem Stephanus Snyman N.O and Another (5180/2021)

Andre Kock en Seun Vrystaat (Pty) Ltd v Willem Stephanus Snyman N.O and Another (5180/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 161 (27 June 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5180/2021

Judge

N.S. Daniso

The High Court held that payment into a fraudulent account did not discharge the Trust’s debt, and ordered payment of the outstanding balance, interest, and costs.

• Payment Obligations
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Contractual Liability
• Electronic-funds-transfer
• Payment-obligations

Spar Group Limited v Absa Bank Limited (74870/2019)

Spar Group Limited v Absa Bank Limited (74870/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 259 (14 August 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

74870/2019

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

The High Court held Absa liable in delict to Spar for reversing EFT debit pull payments without proper enquiry, causing pure economic loss.

• Pure Economic Loss
• Bank Duty Of Care
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Payment Reversal
• National Payment System Act
• Pure-economic-loss

Spar Group Limited v Absa Bank Limited (06584/2011)

Spar Group Limited v Absa Bank Limited (06584/2011) [2014] ZAGPJHC 365 (5 December 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

06584/2011

Judge

C H Nicholls

The High Court dismissed an exception to Absa’s amended plea in a dispute over reversed EFT debit orders, holding the plea was not vague or embarrassing.

• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Duty Of Care
• Negligent Reversal
• Banking Systems
• Exception Procedure
• Pleading Requirements

Absa Bank Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company Ltd, Firstrand Bank Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company Ltd (629/2011, 684/2011)

Absa Bank Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company Ltd, Firstrand Bank Ltd v Lombard Insurance Company Ltd (629/2011, 684/2011) [2012] ZASCA 139; 2012 (6) SA 569 (SCA); [2012] 4 All SA 485 (SCA) (28 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

629/2011, 684/2011

Judges

Mthiyane DP, Cloete JA, Malan JA, Pillay JA, Petse JA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that when stolen funds are paid into a thief's bank accounts and used to discharge overdraft, credit card, and home loan debts, those debts are extinguished. The banks, acting in good faith and without knowledge of the theft at the time of receipt, were entitled to appropriate the funds to settle the debts. The principle of suum recipit applies: a creditor who receives payment of a debt is not enriched, as the payment merely replaces one form of wealth with another. The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam does not entitle the owner of the stolen funds to r…

Source excerpt

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
• Suum Recipit
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Discharge Of Debt

Redlex 226 (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank of South Africa and Others

Redlex 226 (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank of South Africa and Others [2008] ZAGPHC 449; 58/04/01 (7 November 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

5858/04

Judge

Willis

The High Court dismissed an enrichment claim over a fraud-tainted bank suspense account, finding the factual basis for causation was not shown.

• Enrichment Action
• Fraudulent Transfer
• Concursus Creditorum
• Electronic Funds Transfer
• Enrichment-action
• Fraudulent-transfer