Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Barnard v Schoonraad, Delport & Van der Merwe Inc (3679/2010) [2024] ZAECQBHC 3 (23 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed an attorney firm's prescription plea, holding the plaintiff only acquired sufficient knowledge of the negligent handling claim on 10 December 2007.
AV Theron and Swanepoel Inc and Another v Knott - Appeal (A129/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 402 (19 October 2023)
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed in a professional negligence dispute arising from incorrect legal advice about consent requirements for a property sale.
Jordaan N.O and Others v Azar & Havenga Inc. and Others (4956/2019) [2022] ZAFSHC 320 (17 November 2022)
The High Court dismissed a trust’s claim that attorneys failed to pay over Fidelity Fund money, finding the trust’s claim had been repudiated and not paid out.
Johannes G Coetzee & Seun and Another v Le Roux and Another (969/2020) [2022] ZASCA 47 (8 April 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription begins to run when the creditor has knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts from which the debt arises, not when the creditor becomes aware of the legal consequences of those facts. The plaintiffs had the requisite knowledge on or about 26 September 2003, when they mandated the defendants to exercise the option and were told no signature was required, or at the latest by January 2005 when they appointed new attorneys. Their lack of knowledge of the provisions of section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act was a legal conclusion,…
Source excerpt
Global & Local Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouche (71/2019) [2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA) (18 March 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the mandate required instructions to bear the signature of Mr Fouché for authentication and verification purposes. The court found that the typewritten name 'Nick' at the end of the emails did not satisfy the signature requirement, as the parties had not agreed to accept electronic signatures under section 13(3) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. The emails in question were fraudulent and not sent by Mr Fouché, and the absence of a proper signature rendered the instructions invalid. Global acted contrary to the mandate by releasing fun…
Source excerpt
Botha v Edward Leonard Nzabandzaba Inc and Others (718/2012) [2013] ZANWHC 63 (22 August 2013)
The court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim in an attorney-negligence suit, finding the pleaded mandate, breach, and damages were sufficiently linked.
A M Transport (Edms) Bpk v Pleroma (Edms) Bpk en Anders (1731/06) [2010] ZAWCHC 409 (27 May 2010)
High Court claim against two insurance brokers succeeded after the court found they failed to secure goods-in-transit cover for spirits.
Explore more
