South Africa Case Law

Khotso v Nathane (A108/2024)

Khotso v Nathane (A108/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 141 (15 May 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A108/2024

Judges

JP Daffue, NS Daniso, JJ Buys

The appeal was upheld because the respondent, as an unregistered credit provider, entered into a loan agreement that was void for non-compliance with the National Credit Act. The respondent failed to properly plead and verify a cause of action for unjustified enrichment, particularly by not tendering the return of unlawfully received interest. The court a quo erred in granting summary judgment by relying on the relaxation of the par delictum rule and simple justice principles at the summary judgment stage, which should be reserved for trial. The requirements for summary judgment were not met,…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• National Credit Act
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Par Delictum Rule

Nathane v Khoatso (4643/2023)

Nathane v Khoatso (4643/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 100 (4 April 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4643/2023

Judge

Hefer AJ

The court found that the loan agreement between the parties was unlawful and void under the National Credit Act, as the applicant was not a registered credit provider. However, the defendant was unjustifiably enriched by receiving R3,000,000.00 and repaying only R1,400,000.00. The defendant's alleged expunction of debt and other defences lacked factual support and particularity. The court exercised its discretion to relax the par delictum rule, holding that simple justice required restitution of the outstanding balance to the applicant. The requirements for summary judgment were met, as the d…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Summary Judgment
• Par Delictum Rule
• Illegal Contracts

Mahori and Another v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Others (019229/22)

Mahori and Another v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Others (019229/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2029 (12 December 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

019229/22

Judge

E M Kubushi

The High Court dismissed an application alleging NCA contraventions, contempt, fraud, and par delictum consequences arising from a sale in execution and bond reinstatement.

• National Credit Act
• Sale In Execution
• Mortgage Bond Reinstatement
• Contempt Of Court
• Fraud
• Par Delictum Rule

MIIB Business Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (3073/2020)

MIIB Business Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (3073/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 233 (15 October 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3073/2020

Judge

Chesiwe

The High Court dismissed MIIB Business Technologies’ enrichment claim against Matjhabeng Local Municipality for failure to comply with notice, arbitration, and contractual bars.

• Unjust Enrichment
• Special Plea
• Arbitration Clause
• Procurement Illegality
• Par Delictum Rule
• Unjust-enrichment

Maepi v Abrahams (43355/2015)

Maepi v Abrahams (43355/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 17 (30 January 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43355/2015

Judge

Molefe

The court found that the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proof, establishing on a balance of probabilities that a written loan agreement was concluded and R700,000 was paid to the defendant. However, as the total principal debt exceeded the statutory threshold and the plaintiff was not registered as a credit provider, the agreement was void under the National Credit Act. The plaintiff was entitled to claim under unjust enrichment, as the defendant was enriched and the plaintiff impoverished, and no evidence of turpitude was presented. The court rejected the defendant's version as improba…

Source excerpt

• Loan Agreement
• National Credit Act
• Unjust Enrichment
• Registration Of Credit Provider
• Par Delictum Rule

van Heerden en Ander v Vetwol BK (429/2013)

van Heerden en Ander v Vetwol BK (429/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 66 (9 May 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

429/2013

Judge

Kruger, R

The Free State High Court dismissed a liquidation application, finding no liquidated claim and no sufficient proof that the respondent was commercially insolvent.

• Liquidation Application
• Restitution
• Invalid Contract
• Commercial Insolvency
• Condictio Indebiti
• Par Delictum Rule

Philani-Ma-Afrika and Others v Mailula and Others (674/08)

Philani-Ma-Afrika and Others v Mailula and Others (674/08) [2009] ZASCA 115; 2010 (2) SA 573 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 459 (SCA) (25 September 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

674/08

Judges

Farlam, Navsa, Mlambo, Snyders, Tshiqi

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside an unauthorised sale and transfer of Angus Mansions, restored ownership to Philani-Ma-Afrika, and dismissed the eviction case.

• Invalid Transfer Of Property
• Corporate Governance
• Eviction Order
• Par Delictum Rule
• Authority Of Directors
• Appealability Of Orders

Afrisure CC and Another v Watson NO and Another (522/2007)

Afrisure CC and Another v Watson NO and Another (522/2007) [2008] ZASCA 89; [2009] 1 All SA 1 (SCA); 2009 (2) SA 127 (SCA) (11 September 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

522/2007

Judges

Mpati, Brand, Lewis, Combrinck, Boruchowitz

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the agreement between Publiserve and Afrisure was formulated to evade statutory restrictions on broker's commission, constituting an agreement in fraudem legis and thus illegal and unenforceable. Both the broker's commission and the disguised service fees were found to be illegal, and the entire agreement could not be severed to preserve the lawful portion. The par delictum rule, which ordinarily prevents restitution where both parties are in pari delicto, was relaxed in this case due to public policy considerations aimed at protecting scheme members. De…

Source excerpt

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Iniustam Causam
• Par Delictum Rule
• Fiduciary Duty
• Medical Schemes Act
• Broker Commission

Kriel v Beukes (346/06)

Kriel v Beukes (346/06) [2007] ZASCA 74; [2007] SCA 74 (RSA) (31 May 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

346/06

Judges

Streicher, Maya, Musi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that no claim could be enforced for payment for the illegal use of an aircraft, and rejected the counterclaim for lack of proof.

• Illegality Of Contract
• Hire Of Aircraft
• Aviation Regulation
• Counterclaim
• Par Delictum Rule
• Illegal-contract