South Africa Case Law

Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Ramalho, NO and Another (946/2023)

Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Ramalho, NO and Another (946/2023) [2025] ZASCA 97 (2 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

946/2023

Judges

Zondi, Unterhalter, Coppin, Phatshoane, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the payment made to Pick n Pay by White & Case after the liquidation of Lashka was unlawful, as it disregarded the concursus creditorum established by the liquidation. The mandate to White & Case and the authority given to Pick n Pay to instruct payment terminated upon Lashka's liquidation. The payment constituted a preferential settlement of Pick n Pay's claim to the detriment of other creditors and was contrary to the principles of insolvency law. The Sale of Business Agreement was not an uncompleted executory contract requiring further performance, as…

Source excerpt

• Concursus Creditorum
• Insolvency Dispositions
• Liquidation
• Mandate Termination
• Preferential Payment

Margolis and Another v Office Installations SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (44154/2021)

Margolis and Another v Office Installations SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (44154/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 433 (30 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44154/2021

Judge

Omphemetse Mooki

The High Court held that the plaintiffs proved an oral mandate entitling them to recover outstanding litigation disbursements, with interest and costs.

• Oral Agreement
• Attorney Client Fees
• Disbursements
• Mandate Termination
• Interest On Debt
• Oral-agreement

Zwane v RZT Zelpy 4695 CC t/a Remax Central (A133/2022)

Zwane v RZT Zelpy 4695 CC t/a Remax Central (A133/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1979 (28 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A133/2022

Judges

Thobane AJ, Millar J

Appeal dismissed in an estate-agent commission dispute. The High Court held the agent was the effective cause of the lease and that alleged mandate termination did not defeat commission.

• Estate Agency Affairs Act
• Fidelity Fund Certificate
• Effective Cause
• Commission Claim
• Mandate Termination
• Locus Standi

Matsi Law Chambers Inc v Mailula and Another (46358/2021)

Matsi Law Chambers Inc v Mailula and Another (46358/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1138 (7 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46358/2021

Judge

Sardiwalla

The Court found that there was no direct appeal or application for leave to appeal against the principal order of Baqwa J made on 18 December 2020. The respondents' appeal was against a related order by Davis J, not the principal order. In terms of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the absence of a direct appeal means the principal order is not suspended and remains effective and executable. The section 18 application was therefore premature, and there was no need for the Court to consider exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed…

Source excerpt

• Section 18 Application
• Execution Of Judgment
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Mandate Termination
• File Recovery

Moodliyar & Bedhesi Attorneys v Madatt and Another (11188/15)

Moodliyar & Bedhesi Attorneys v Madatt and Another (11188/15) [2022] ZAGPJHC 630 (18 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11188/15

Judge

Olivier

High Court prescription ruling on attorney fees: personal-capacity claim survives, but the representative-capacity claim against the parents is dismissed.

• Prescription Act
• Attorney Client Fees
• Mandate Termination
• Joinder Of Parties
• Prescription
• Attorney-client-fees

Diale and Another v Diale and Another In re: Diale v Gallery Momo Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (2019/23347)

Diale and Another v Diale and Another In re: Diale v Gallery Momo Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (2019/23347) [2021] ZAGPJHC 603 (23 March 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/23347

Judge

Yacoob

The High Court granted joinder to trustees of the Dumile Feni Family Trust, finding they had a substantial interest in the main application about Feni artworks.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Substantial Interest
• Mandate Termination
• Trust Law
• Joinder-of-parties
• Substantial-interest

Peulen v Lessing and Others (90199/2015)

Peulen v Lessing and Others (90199/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 625 (19 October 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

90199/2015

Judge

Ranchod

The High Court granted leave to amend particulars of claim in an attorney-account dispute, holding the changes did not introduce a new cause of action.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Attorney Client Accounting
• Prescription
• Debate Of Account
• Mandate Termination
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Selota Attorneys and Another v ONR and Others (2018/11026)

Selota Attorneys and Another v ONR and Others (2018/11026) [2020] ZAGPJHC 232; [2020] 4 All SA 569 (GJ) (21 August 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/11026

Judge

Gilbert

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any procedural error justifying rescission under Rule 42(1)(a). The applicants did not demonstrate that the court was unaware of any fact which, if known, would have precluded the granting of the order. The relief granted, except for paragraph 1, was reasonably anticipated in light of the nature of the proceedings and the interests of the minor. The applicants' defence lacked merit, as they had no mandate to deal with the funds after termination and failed to pay the funds to the respondent's attorneys. The court held that even if a proc…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Trusts For Minors
• Attorney Misconduct
• Mandate Termination

Daniels v Klaasen; Keith Sheldon Attorneys v Daniels (A306/2018)

Daniels v Klaasen; Keith Sheldon Attorneys v Daniels (A306/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 99 (14 August 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A306/2018

Judges

Davis, LE Grange, Cloete

The court found that, although Daniels had not formally terminated her mandate with Nasson or Klaasen, the evidence indicated that the mandate had effectively transferred to Sheldon when Matthee took the file to Sheldon’s practice and continued to represent Daniels. Daniels regarded Matthee as her representative and accepted his move to Sheldon as a continuation of her legal assistance. The authority bestowed upon Klaasen expired when Matthee left his employ and began working for Sheldon. Sheldon, as the supervising attorney, bore the responsibility to ensure that his paralegal was adequately…

Source excerpt

• Professional Negligence
• Mandate Termination
• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Prescription Of Claims

Sifuba and Another v Mario Coetzee Attorneys (20224/18)

Sifuba and Another v Mario Coetzee Attorneys (20224/18) [2018] ZAGPPHC 870 (3 December 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20224/18

Judge

P.M. Mabuse

The High Court ordered an attorney to refund R988,521 held in trust for a property transfer that was never completed, and awarded attorney-client costs.

• Trust Account Liability
• Refund Of Purchase Price
• Mandate Termination
• Misjoinder
• Attorney Conduct
• Costs Order