South Africa Case Law

Huxham N.O and Another v Minister of Police (747/2014)

Huxham N.O and Another v Minister of Police (747/2014) [2024] ZANCHC 8 (2 February 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

747/2014

Judge

Stanton

Civil trial on quantum after liability was conceded. The court admitted hearsay evidence from deceased plaintiffs, rejected the sugilite valuation claim, and awarded general damages for unlawful arrest and detention.

• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• General Damages
• Hearsay Evidence Admissibility
• Malicious Prosecution
• Expert Evidence
• Unlawful-arrest-and-detention

Segal and Another v Master of the High Court Cape Town and Others (145/19)

Segal and Another v Master of the High Court Cape Town and Others (145/19) [2020] ZAWCHC 144 (22 October 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

145/19

Judge

LekhULENI

The Court found that the contested Will was signed by the deceased and represented his true intention regarding the disposition of his estate. The surrounding circumstances, including the deceased's estrangement from his family and the specific instructions in the Will, demonstrated clear testamentary intention. The forensic handwriting report was admitted as evidence, and the respondents did not dispute the authenticity of the signature or the contents of the Will. The delay in bringing the application was justified by the applicants' efforts to trace the deceased's family, and no prejudice…

Source excerpt

• Wills Act Section 2 3
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Testamentary Intention
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Hearsay Evidence Admissibility

Grant Thornton Capital Umbrella Fund v Da Silva (A5066/2012)

Grant Thornton Capital Umbrella Fund v Da Silva (A5066/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 231 (20 September 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5066/2012

Judges

C J Claassen, C Lamont, K Foulkes-Jones

The plaintiff, acting in a representative capacity as a provident fund, paid R360 417.97 to the defendant in error after the defendant had already received his pension benefits via a section 14 transfer to Liberty Life. The payment was made due to an administrative system error and was ultra vires the fund's powers under the Pension Funds Act and its rules, which prohibit payments to former members beyond those authorised. The defendant admitted receiving the second payment but failed to provide any evidence rebutting the presumption of enrichment. The court a quo erred in excluding relevant…

Source excerpt

• Condictio Indebiti
• Ultra Vires Payment
• Pension Fund Transfer
• Onus Of Enrichment
• Hearsay Evidence Admissibility