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
DBM Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2022/047685) [2024] ZAGPPHC 268 (14 March 2024)
The High Court held that DBM Property Investments could recover an excess municipal payment made in error under condictio indebiti.
Izicash (Pty) Ltd v Kamoza Technology Solutions CC and Others (47216/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 762 (30 August 2023)
The High Court granted default judgment against the first and second defendants for a mistaken payment into the company’s account, while the action against the third defendant remained pending.
Van Loggerensberg v Manny's Timber & Hardware (Pty) Ltd and Others (56164/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 823 (23 June 2017)
High Court claim for repayment based on unjust enrichment failed because the defendants were not shown to have been enriched at the plaintiff’s expense.
Umzumbe Municipality v Great Supply CC (118/2009) [2013] ZAKZDHC 13 (15 April 2013)
The court dismissed Umzumbe Municipality’s claim for repayment, holding that it failed to prove the defendant was enriched after goods were delivered and paid for.
Potgieter v Capricorn Beach Homeowners Association and Another (13667/2008) [2012] ZAWCHC 66 (20 March 2012)
The court found that the applicant, as a practising attorney, acted as principal in operating his trust account and was personally liable to his client for the funds. The payment to the first respondent was made in error, with no intention or instruction to pay the first respondent, and thus no meeting of minds occurred. The first respondent was not entitled to appropriate the funds or apply set-off, as the debt was disputed and not liquidated. The alleged agreement to hold the funds in trust pending dispute resolution was not proven, as there was no evidence of the applicant's client's conse…
Source excerpt
Afgri Bedryfs Bpk v Coetzee (575/2005) [2012] ZANWHC 3 (1 March 2012)
The High Court found that the plaintiff proved a mistaken double credit on the defendant’s account and granted judgment for the plaintiff.
Afgri Bedryfs Beperk v Van De Venter (CA 6/2007) [2007] ZANWHC 70 (1 November 2007)
Appeal dismissed where the appellant failed to prove the respondent authorised payment into her husband’s account or was enriched by the mistaken payment.
Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd. v Marnitz NO and Others (Stand 186 Aeroport (Pty) Ltd. Intervening) (27/2004) [2004] ZASCA 98; [2006] 4 All SA 120 (SCA); 2005 (1) SA 441 (SCA) (1 October 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Maple Freight CC was not entitled to the funds mistakenly transferred to its account, as there was no intention on the part of the appellant to pay Maple. Payment requires consensus, and the mistaken transfer did not confer entitlement on Maple. Any appropriation of the funds by Maple, with knowledge of the mistake, would constitute theft. The funds did not form part of Maple's insolvent estate, and the liquidators had no claim against Firstrand Bank in respect of the funds. The appellant was entitled to the return of the amount traced to the mistaken pay…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Ltd v Leech and Others (442/98) [2001] ZASCA 65; [2001] 4 All SA 55 (A); 2001 (4) SA 132 (SCA) (23 May 2001)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that ABSA was entitled to keep the settlement payment because the Trust did not pay it under a mistaken belief that it was owing.
Explore more
