South Africa Case Law

Minister of Police v Underwriters at Lloyds of Londo (1212/19)

Minister of Police v Underwriters at Lloyds of Londo (1212/19) [2021] ZASCA 72 (8 June 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1212/19

Judges

Wallis, Makgoka, Kgoele, Phatshoane, Goosen

The court held that the proposed amendment to the Minister's plea was bad in law and excipiable. It found that SBV could not be vicariously liable for a theft committed against itself by its employee, Ms Nkosi, and that the notion of SBV participating in the robbery as both victim and wrongdoer was legally untenable. The principles of ex turpi causa non oritur actio and in pari delicto have not been applied to delictual claims in South African law outside contract and enrichment, and there was no basis to extend them here. The court further held that SBV and the Minister could not be consider…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Joint Wrongdoers
• Illegality Defence
• Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
• In Pari Delicto
• Apportionment Of Damages

Grindrod Bank Limited v Torode N.O and Others (55503/11)

Grindrod Bank Limited v Torode N.O and Others (55503/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 281 (13 May 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55503/2011

Judge

A.M.L. Phatudi

The court held the loan was an unlawful financial assistance transaction under section 38(1) and dismissed both the bank’s claim and the counterclaim.

• Illegal Contract
• Financial Assistance For Share Acquisition
• Section 38 Companies Act
• In Pari Delicto
• Counter Claim
• Costs Order

Gihwala NO and Another v Bam (4268/2008)

Gihwala NO and Another v Bam (4268/2008) [2012] ZAWCHC 264 (23 May 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4268/2008

Judge

Allie

The court found that the payments made to the defendant for the sale of shares were in contravention of section 38 of the old Companies Act and constituted illegal financial assistance. The agreement and payments were void for illegality, and the defendant was unjustly enriched. The defence of res judicata failed because the parties and causes of action differed from the prior litigation, and the curators' claim was not prescribed as prescription only began running upon their appointment. The fraudulent conduct and knowledge of the directors could be imputed to the companies, but not to the c…

Source excerpt

• Unjust Enrichment
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
• Section 38 Companies Act
• Prescription
• In Pari Delicto
• Curatorship Liability

Oosthuizen NO v Du Preez and Others (29116/2006)

Oosthuizen NO v Du Preez and Others (29116/2006) [2009] ZAGPPHC 138 (6 November 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29116/2006

Judge

E M Makgoba

The court found that the transfer of the property to the first and second defendants was unlawful and fraudulent, as no valid deed of alienation existed and the signatures of Mrs Uijs were forged. The purported contract did not comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981, as the purchase price was not recorded and the original purchaser's name was altered without consent. The defences of estoppel and in pari delicto were rejected, as estoppel cannot validate an illegal transaction and the defendants knowingly participated in the fraud. The plaintiff was entitled to resto…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Fraudulent Transfer
• Estoppel
• In Pari Delicto
• Restoration Of Ownership
• Punitive Costs

Klokow v Sullivan (410/2004)

Klokow v Sullivan (410/2004) [2005] ZASCA 99; 2006 (1) SA 259 (SCA) (29 September 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

410/2004

Judges

Mpati, Cameron, Brand, Nkabinde, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an illegal liquor-business sale was void, but repayment was allowed because equity and public policy defeated strict application of in pari delicto.

• Illegality Of Contract
• In Pari Delicto
• Unjust Enrichment
• Liquor Act Compliance
• In-pari-delicto
• Unjust-enrichment