South Africa Case Law

Cellucity (Proprietary) Limited v Phillpson-Garcia and Others (17191/24)

Cellucity (Proprietary) Limited v Phillpson-Garcia and Others (17191/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 346; 2025 (3) SA 170 (WCC) (4 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17191/24

Judge

M W Janisch

The applicant established, on uncontested evidence, that the First Respondent misappropriated R10,184,455.95 by falsifying invoices and diverting funds into an account she controlled. The First Respondent acquired multiple immovable properties with the proceeds, and did not deny the allegations or provide any legitimate explanation for the source of her wealth. The court found a clear connection between the stolen funds and the identified properties, rendering the claim quasi-vindicatory. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to repayment and anti-dissipation interdicts over the First Respo…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Theft By Employee
• Misappropriation Of Funds
• Interim Interdict
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim

Interwaste (PTY) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (24005/2022)

Interwaste (PTY) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (24005/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 607 (26 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24005/2022

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court set aside an ex parte anti-dissipation order against the tenth and thirteenth respondents, finding no proven link between their accounts and stolen funds.

• Anti Dissipation Order
• Rule 6 12 C Reconsideration
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim
• Interdict
• Fraudulent Transfer
• Anti-dissipation-order

Blackberry Limited and Another v Silver Meadow Trading 257 (Pty) Ltd t/a Phat Concepts and Others (50304/14)

Blackberry Limited and Another v Silver Meadow Trading 257 (Pty) Ltd t/a Phat Concepts and Others (50304/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 323 (11 May 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50304/14

Judge

J W Louw

The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim found vague and embarrassing because the pleaded case did not clearly identify its legal basis.

• Exception Procedure
• Vagueness And Embarrassment
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim
• Contract Vs Delict
• Exception-procedure
• Vague-and-embarrassing-pleading

Pieterse v Broderick and Others (CA96/2013)

Pieterse v Broderick and Others (CA96/2013) [2014] ZAECGHC 8 (27 February 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA96/2013

Judges

J W Eksteen, M S Dunywa

The court dismissed an appeal against discharge of an interim interdict over funds held in trust, holding the money was not identifiable with the commission claim.

• Interim Interdict
• Commission Claim
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim
• Estate Agency Affairs Act
• Costs Award
• Interim-interdict

Royal Bafokeng Nation and Others v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (38843/12)

Royal Bafokeng Nation and Others v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (38843/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 82 (22 February 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

38843/12

Judge

Willis

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish a clear right, title and interest in the funds held under Sanlam Investment Company 5096410. The funds were not sufficiently earmarked as belonging to the applicants, and the cession by the attorneys to the first respondent was valid and effective against the world, including the first respondent. Even if the cession was invalid, the first respondent would have a common law right to retain the funds until any prejudice was cured. The first respondent acted bona fide and was not put on enquiry regarding the legitimacy of…

Source excerpt

• Quasi Vindicatory Claim
• Cession In Securitatem Debiti
• Attorneys Trust Accounts
• Earmarking Of Funds
• Common Law Right Of Retention

Joint Stock Company Varvarinskoye v Absa Bank Ltd. and Others (164/07)

Joint Stock Company Varvarinskoye v Absa Bank Ltd. and Others (164/07) [2008] ZASCA 35; [2008] 3 All SA 130 (SCA); 2008 (4) SA 287 (SCA) (28 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

164/07

Judges

Howie, Navsa, Ponnan, Maya, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant had proved an entitlement to the funds appropriated by Absa from account 1313. The funds were deposited for the specific purpose of paying MDM and its subcontractors, with withdrawals subject to formalities that excluded control by the sixth respondent. Absa was aware of the source and purpose of the funds and had agreed to warehouse the money for the appellant. The sixth respondent and its liquidators never asserted any claim to the funds. In these circumstances, Absa was not entitled to apply set-off against the funds, as none of its debto…

Source excerpt

• Bank Set Off
• Ownership Of Funds In Bank Account
• Agency Relationships
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim
• Trust Arrangements
• Liquidation And Creditor Rights

Joint Stock Company and Vavarinskowye v ABSA Bank Ltd

Joint Stock Company and Vavarinskowye v ABSA Bank Ltd [2006] ZAGPHC 258; 11778/06 (15 November 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

11778/06

Judge

Willis

The court dismissed an application over bank funds appropriated by the bank, finding genuine disputes of fact and insufficient proof that the applicant retained ownership after deposit.

• Appropriation Of Bank Funds
• Set Off
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim
• Notice To Bank
• Bank-set-off
• Bank-account-funds