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
Naledi Coal and Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Li Coal Clean Coal Gasification (Pty) Ltd (2024/075293) [2025] ZAGPJHC 674 (7 May 2025)
The High Court held the respondent liable to reimburse coal transport costs incurred by the applicant acting on a mandate to arrange logistics.
Fourie v Van der Spuy and De Jongh Inc. and Others (65609/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 449; 2020 (1) SA 560 (GP) (30 August 2019)
The High Court held that attorneys who failed to verify hacked email banking instructions were liable to pay over trust funds lost in cybercrime.
Jurgens and Another v Volschenk (4067/18) [2019] ZAECPEHC 41 (27 June 2019)
The High Court held a conveyancer liable for failing to verify suspicious bank details before paying sale proceeds, causing the applicants’ loss.
Nel v Ramwell t/a Ramwell Attorneys (18171/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 28 (1 March 2019)
The application was dismissed because the material disputes of fact between the parties could not be resolved on the papers alone. The applicant's belated request for referral to oral evidence was refused, as such applications must be made in limine and no exceptional circumstances were shown. The factual disputes were wide-ranging and required full ventilation at trial. The respondent's version was not so implausible or untenable as to be rejected on the papers, and the applicant had elected to proceed by way of motion proceedings despite being alerted to the inappropriateness of this proced…
Source excerpt
Lochner v Schaefer Incorporated and Others (3518/16) [2017] ZAECPEHC 4 (24 January 2017)
The court held that fault (negligence) is a necessary element for liability under a contract of mandate between attorney and client. The plaintiff's argument that mere non-execution of the mandate suffices for liability was rejected. On the papers, the court was not prepared to find that the defendants were negligent, as this issue could only be properly determined after oral evidence and cross-examination. The defendants had raised a bona fide defence that their failure to execute the mandate was not due to negligence. Accordingly, summary judgment was refused and the defendants were granted…
Source excerpt
Seevnarayan v Garlicke and Bousfield Inc (15380/2010) [2015] ZAKZDHC 8; [2015] 2 All SA 503 (KZD) (17 February 2015)
The High Court held that the attorneys did not cause prescription of the underlying claim, but were liable for negligently pursuing prescribed litigation and wasted costs.
ABC Sports Management Ltd v Botha (34431/11) [2013] ZAGPPHC 427 (15 November 2013)
The High Court dismissed a sports agency’s damages claim against a rugby player, finding the agency lacked authority to act in France and failed to prove quantum.
Burger v Catherine Isabel Crafford vha Pasadena Eiendomme (A343/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 140 (23 October 2008)
Appeal over estate-agent commission dismissed; the court held the respondent’s introduction of the purchaser was the effective cause of the sale.
Van Heerden and Others v Suidwes Landbou (Edms) Beperk and Another (370/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 56 (26 June 2008)
The court found that the settlement agreement and cession established an agency relationship between the first applicant and the first respondent. As agent, the first respondent was obliged to account fully for its dealings with the maize, including providing all supporting documents and allowing inspection of its books. The applicants had established a sufficient basis for requiring access to the documents and information to protect their rights, both under the law of agency and the Constitution. The respondents' refusal to disclose the details and supporting documentation was unjustified. T…
Source excerpt
Explore more
