South Africa Case Law

Soft Coffee (Pty) Limited v Legal Practitioner's Fidelity Fund Board (A84/2023)

Soft Coffee (Pty) Limited v Legal Practitioner's Fidelity Fund Board (A84/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 887 (6 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A84/2023

Judges

Strijdom, Molopa-Sethosa, Mooki

The court found that the appellant's funds were not instructed to be invested, but were entrusted to Dadic Attorneys to be held in trust pending the registration of mortgage bonds. The undisputed evidence established that the attorney was to hold the funds and only disburse them upon fulfilment of specific conditions, evidencing an intention of entrustment. The statutory exclusion in section 47(1)(g) did not apply, as the attorney's sole objective was theft, and the funds were not received for investment purposes. The court a quo erred in finding that the transactions were mere loans and not…

Source excerpt

• Attorneys Fidelity Fund
• Entrustment Of Funds
• Pecuniary Loss
• Statutory Exclusion
• Fraudulent Misappropriation

Van Tonder v Road Accident Fund (1736/2020; 9773/2021)

Van Tonder v Road Accident Fund (1736/2020; 9773/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 305 (1 December 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1736/2020; 9773/2021

Judge

J Cloete

The court held that the Road Accident Fund remains liable to compensate claimants for past medical expenses, even where those expenses have already been paid by private medical aid schemes. The contractual obligation of claimants to reimburse their medical aid upon recovery from the RAF does not fall within the exclusionary provisions of section 19(d)(i) of the RAF Act, as such agreements are not champertous and do not undermine the statutory purpose. The RAF's reliance on regulations 7 and 8 of the Medical Schemes Act to preclude subrogation and bar recovery was rejected, as there is no auth…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Medical Aid Subrogation
• Past Medical Expenses
• Double Compensation
• Statutory Exclusion
• Punitive Costs

Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs (CCT02/18)

Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs (CCT02/18) [2018] ZACC 52; 2019 (3) BCLR 383 (CC); 2019 (2) SA 329 (CC) (20 December 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT02/18

Judges

Basson AJ, Cameron J, Dlodlo AJ, Froneman J, Goliath AJ, Khampepe J, Mhlantla J, Petse AJ, Theron J

The Constitutional Court held that delay in seeking asylum does not bar an applicant from accessing the asylum process under the Refugees Act. The only grounds for exclusion are those set out in section 4, and the Refugee Status Determination Officer alone is authorised to assess the merits of an application. Crimes committed within South Africa do not trigger exclusion under section 4(1)(b). The Immigration Act must be read in harmony with the Refugees Act, and the latter prevails in matters of asylum. The Supreme Court of Appeal was bound by its own precedents, which consistently held that…

Source excerpt

• Refugees Act Interpretation
• Non Refoulement
• Delay In Asylum Application
• Statutory Exclusion
• Precedent Stare Decisis

Southern African Fraud Prevention Service Ltd v National Credit Regulator (NCT168/2009/54(1 )(T))

Southern African Fraud Prevention Service Ltd v National Credit Regulator (NCT168/2009/54(1 )(T)) [2009] ZANCT 6 (6 March 2009)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT168/2009/54(1 )(T)

Judges

H Flemming, B Dumisa, N Sephoti

The Tribunal held that Fraud Service did not need to register as a credit bureau and set aside the NCR’s notice to cease.

• National Credit Act Interpretation
• Credit Bureau Registration
• Statutory Exclusion
• Payment For Services
• Administrative Compliance
• National-credit-act