South Africa Case Law

Hartog v Daly and Others (A5012/2022)

Hartog v Daly and Others (A5012/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 40; [2023] 2 All SA 156 (GJ) (24 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5012/2022

Judges

Strydom, M M Mabesele, J J Strijdom

The Full Court found that the appellant breached the mandate by paying the sale proceeds into an account not nominated by the respondents, resulting in loss due to fraud. The alleged tacit term requiring respondents to ensure data/email security was not established on the facts or by inference; the probabilities did not support its existence. All relevant facts were common cause, and no genuine factual dispute existed requiring referral to trial. The appellant's claims against Standard Bank for delictual liability failed due to lack of evidence of wrongfulness or negligence, as Standard Bank…

Source excerpt

• Mandate Liability
• Business Email Compromise
• Payment Instructions
• Delictual Liability
• Contractual Terms
• Electronic Fund Transfer

Belrex 95 CC v Barday (4364/2020)

Belrex 95 CC v Barday (4364/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 149; 2021 (3) SA 178 (WCC) (6 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4364/2020

Judge

R.C.A. Henney

The court held that the amended Rule 32 requires a summary judgment application to be brought after the delivery of a plea, and the supporting affidavit must address the defences pleaded. Where a defendant amends his plea after the summary judgment application has commenced, the plaintiff is prejudiced by being unable to respond to the new defences in its affidavit, as Rule 32(4) prohibits further evidence. The defendant is entitled to amend his plea at any stage before judgment, and the amended Rule 32 does not preclude such amendment. However, the amended plea was not yet effective at the t…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Rule 32 Amendment
• Pleading Amendment
• Mandate Liability
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Statement Of Account

Thompson and Another v Heinsen and Another (A691/2016)

Thompson and Another v Heinsen and Another (A691/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 359 (10 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A691/2016

Judge

Nair

The High Court granted leave to appeal after finding that one ground—an ostensible dispute of fact—met the stricter section 17 test.

• Leave To Appeal
• Breach Of Contract
• Mandate Liability
• Dispute Of Fact
• Leave-to-appeal
• Dispute-of-fact

Van der Westhuizen v Strombeck Pieterse Incorporated and Others (851/2017)

Van der Westhuizen v Strombeck Pieterse Incorporated and Others (851/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 25 (3 April 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

851/2017

Judge

N G Beshe

The High Court refused to separate a legal issue under Rule 33(4), holding that the question was tied to contract interpretation and should be heard with the main case.

• Rule 33 4 Separation Of Issues
• Contract Interpretation
• Debtor Creditor Relationship
• Mandate Liability
• Rule-33-4
• Separation-of-issues

Tubane v Machakela and Others (799/2014)

Tubane v Machakela and Others (799/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 193 (30 October 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

799/2014

Judge

N.P. Jaji

High Court order for repayment of purchase-money paid under a void sale, and damages reserved against a legal services provider for alleged negligence.

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Void Contract
• Professional Negligence
• Mandate Liability
• Repayment Of Purchase Price
• Costs On Attorney And Client Scale

Groenewald v West Country Estates (7467/07)

Groenewald v West Country Estates (7467/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 188 (6 May 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

7467/07

Judge

T.J. Vilakazi

The defendant, as agent, was contractually obliged to manage the plaintiff's property, pay levies and bond instalments, maintain the property, and keep the plaintiff informed of any legal proceedings or arrears. The evidence established that the defendant failed to pay levies regularly, did not notify the plaintiff of summons and warrant of execution, and neglected its duty to protect the plaintiff's interests. This breach of mandate directly resulted in the sale in execution of the plaintiff's property at a price far below its market value. The defendant's conduct was found to be deliberate…

Source excerpt

• Mandate Liability
• Agent Duties
• Sale In Execution
• Quantum Of Damages

Van Rooyen NO v Rorich Wolmarans & Luderitz (146/08)

Van Rooyen NO v Rorich Wolmarans & Luderitz (146/08) [2008] ZASCA 135; [2009] 2 All SA 201 (SCA) (26 November 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

146/08

Judges

Scott, Brand, Combrinck, Boruchowitz, Griesel

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal about whether conveyancers were instructed to pay conveyancing proceeds to De Mist rather than to curators.

• Mandate Liability
• Professional Negligence
• Insolvency Practices
• Burden Of Proof
• Insolvency-law
• Mandate-law

David Trust and Others v Aegis Insurance Company Ltd and Another (645/97)

David Trust and Others v Aegis Insurance Company Ltd and Another (645/97) [2000] ZASCA 19; 2000 (3) SA 289 (SCA) ; [2000] 2 All SA 297 (A) (31 March 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

645/97

Judges

Hefer, Smalberger, Nienaber, Marais, Mthiyane

The court held that a professional indemnity policy covered losses from a partner’s embezzlement in the course of a mandate to administer client funds.

• Professional Indemnity Insurance
• Mandate Liability
• Embezzlement By Partner
• Breach Of Contract
• Quantification Of Damages
• Mora Interest