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
Kramer Weihmann Incorporated v Joubert and Others (3645/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 374 (25 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed exceptions to amended particulars of claim in a damages action, holding that the pleadings disclosed a sustainable cause of action.
DCL Interiors CC (In Liquidation) v Weavind & Weavind INC and Others (3024/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 949 (23 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed a liquidators’ application over payments from an attorney trust account after winding-up, finding the corporation’s deregistration left the liquidators without mandate.
Herold Gie and Broadhead Inc v Harris N O and Others (602/2023) [2024] ZASCA 125; [2024] 4 All SA 333 (SCA); 2025 (2) SA 144 (SCA) (13 September 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 6(4) of the HDSA did not support a refund claim where the practitioner had already paid the developer before insolvency.
Wilson v Du Toit Smuts and Partners Attorneys and Others (3985/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 57 (27 August 2024)
The High Court held that a buyer’s claim to recover a deposit held in trust had not prescribed while the funds remained in the attorney’s trust account.
W Capital Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another v GP Venter Attorneys Inc and Another (79444/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 223 (11 March 2024)
The High Court ordered payment of trust monies and counsel’s fees, rejected a prescription defence, and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim.
Direro v Van Bruggen and Another (18882/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1935 (10 November 2023)
Provisional sequestration was refused because the applicant failed to prove a subsisting debt, factual insolvency, or advantage to creditors.
Malebye Motaung Mtembu Attorneys v Ntozini and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 543; 22775/2021 (11 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant, as the holder of the trust account into which Eskom deposited the settlement funds, had a direct and substantial interest in the recovery of the misappropriated funds. The applicant was duty bound to account to Eskom for the stolen funds and retained control over the trust account as principal. The fabricated settlement agreement was invalid and could not negate the applicant's standing. The court held that the applicant's locus standi was established, and it was entitled to restitution of the traceable funds from the relevant bank accounts. Declaratory rel…
Source excerpt
Legal Practitioners Fidelity Fund v Guilherme (702/2022) [2023] ZASCA 96; 2023 (5) SA 409 (SCA) (13 June 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent’s payment of funds into the attorney’s trust account, on the advice of the attorney acting as executor of her late husband’s estate, constituted an entrustment under section 26(a) of the Attorneys Act. The court rejected the Fund’s argument that the deposit was merely for safekeeping and not an entrustment, finding that the concepts of deposit and entrustment are not mutually exclusive. The respondent was the lawful beneficiary of the policy proceeds, and her motive for depositing the funds was immaterial to her right to reimbursement. The…
Source excerpt
Du Toit and Others v Du Toit-Smuts & Partners and Another (4748/2021) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 22 (12 April 2023)
The court found that the applicants’ claim for the return of the R25,000.00 reservation deposit had prescribed under the Prescription Act, as more than three years had elapsed since the debt became due, either from the date of demand or the conclusion of the contract. The deposit was paid into the trust account of the First Respondent as agent for the Second Respondent, and the correct party to sue was the Second Respondent, not the attorney. The applicants did not have a real right to the funds in the trust account, only a personal claim as trust creditors. The First Respondent was ethically…
Source excerpt
Van den Heever and Others v RC Christie Incorporated and Others (21746/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 897 (16 November 2022)
The court found that the funds held in Water Africa's attorneys' trust account were the property of Water Africa, not the second and third defendants, as evidenced by correspondence, affidavits, and the purpose of the tender. Payments made from the trust account to the second and third defendants after the final winding-up order were void under the Companies Act and Insolvency Act. The subsequent business rescue order did not alter the legal position, as the winding-up order remained in force and reinstatement restored the status quo ante. Water Africa's attorneys were liable for unauthorised…
Source excerpt
Explore more
