South Africa Case Law

Gadiah and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (8752/22D)

Gadiah and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (8752/22D) [2024] ZAKZDHC 65; 2025 (1) SACR 81 (KZD) (23 September 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

8752/22D

Judge

Davis AJ

The applicants participated in an unlawful multiplication scheme operated by Manci, promising returns far exceeding lawful interest rates. Their invested funds were used as instrumentality of the offence. Although the applicants claim to be victims and deny knowledge of illegality, the extraordinary returns and their conduct raise a clear factual dispute regarding their knowledge. Motion proceedings are ill-suited to resolve such disputes, and neither party sought referral to oral evidence. On the common cause facts, the applicants have not established grounds for variation of the forfeiture…

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture Of Property
• Ponzi Scheme
• Multiplication Scheme
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Consumer Protection Act
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property

Stewart N.O and Others v Pillary N.O and Another (8855/2017P)

Stewart N.O and Others v Pillary N.O and Another (8855/2017P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 49 (16 September 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8855/2017P

Judge

Khallil

The High Court set aside 101 payments made by Carmol Distributors to a trust as voidable dispositions and ordered repayment with interest and costs.

• Voidable Dispositions
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Ponzi Scheme
• Banking Regulation
• Trust Liability
• Burden Of Proof

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Phansi (81710/2019)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Phansi (81710/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 174 (10 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

81710/2019

Judge

N Davis

The High Court ordered forfeiture under POCA after finding the respondent operated a Ponzi scheme and that the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Proceeds
• Ponzi Scheme
• Financial Services Regulation
• Poca-forfeiture
• Ponzi-scheme

Bester and Others NNO v Gouws and Others (851/2019)

Bester and Others NNO v Gouws and Others (851/2019) [2020] ZASCA 174 (17 December 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

851/2019

Judges

Ponnan, Wallis, Zondi, Dlodlo, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trustees of the RVAF Trust either had, or could reasonably have acquired, the requisite knowledge to institute claims against the brokers by 23 October 2012. The relevant facts, including the existence and identity of the brokers and the commissions paid, were readily available in the broker files and could have been accessed through reasonable care. The trustees' decision to prioritise other matters did not justify postponing the running of prescription, as a creditor cannot delay prescription through their own conduct. The court found no material mi…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Trustee Liability
• Unjust Enrichment
• Ponzi Scheme
• Impeachable Transaction

Bester N.O and Others v Richter, Niewoudt, Malherbe, Geldenhuys, Conradie, Kellerman, Conradie, Visser, Horn, Visser (7596/2015, 11901/2015, 11210/2015, 11321/2015, 11229/2015, 11209/2015, 11233/2015, 11208/2015, 11641/2015, 11211/2015)

Bester N.O and Others v Richter, Niewoudt, Malherbe, Geldenhuys, Conradie, Kellerman, Conradie, Visser, Horn, Visser (7596/2015, 11901/2015, 11210/2015, 11321/2015, 11229/2015, 11209/2015, 11233/2015, 11208/2015, 11641/2015, 11211/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 169 (6 November 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7596/2015, 11901/2015, 11210/2015, 11321/2015, 11229/2015, 11209/2015, 11233/2015, 11208/2015, 11641/2015, 11211/2015

Judge

Davis

The court held that the second plaintiff's verifying affidavit did not meet the requirements of Rule 32, as she lacked sufficient personal knowledge of the underlying transactions and circumstances of the trust's operation. The nature of the dispute, involving complex issues of trustee authority, the application of the trust deed, and the possible relevance of the Turquand rule, required a full ventilation of evidence at trial. The defendants raised bona fide defences, including the possibility that payments were made pursuant to valid investment contracts and that they acted in good faith. T…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Condictio Sine Causa
• Trustee Authority
• Ponzi Scheme
• Rule 32
• Turquand Rule

Bekker and Another v Stewart N.O and Another (A263/2013)

Bekker and Another v Stewart N.O and Another (A263/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 210 (10 December 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A263/2013

Judges

Ebrahim, Jordaan, Moeng

High Court appeal over costs in an insolvent-estate/Ponzi scheme recovery action. The court adjusted expert-witness costs and held the plaintiffs were entitled to costs.

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Ponzi Scheme
• Expert Witness Costs
• Costs Award Discretion
• Unlawful Disposition
• Interest On Judgment Debt

Gainsford NO and Others v Jawmend Rossi Capital (Pty) Ltd (27543/2010)

Gainsford NO and Others v Jawmend Rossi Capital (Pty) Ltd (27543/2010) [2013] ZAGPJHC 42 (12 February 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

27543/2010

Judge

Mathopo

The court held that the plaintiffs' application to amend did not require a supporting affidavit, as the amendment did not involve withdrawal of admissions. The amendment was not brought at the eleventh hour, and the defendant had sufficient time to prepare its case. No prejudice to the defendant was demonstrated, and the objections regarding vagueness, embarrassment, and bona fides were unfounded. The issue of prescription was disputed and should be raised by special plea and adjudicated at trial, not as an objection to amendment. The particulars of claim, as amended, were sufficiently detail…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Insolvency Act
• Prescription
• Enrichment Claim
• Ponzi Scheme
• Costs Order