South Africa Case Law

Imbani Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Homsek (Pty) Ltd and Others (5544/2018)

Imbani Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Homsek (Pty) Ltd and Others (5544/2018) [2025] ZAFSHC 205 (4 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5544/2018

Judge

Van Rhyn

The court found that the applicant's proposed amendment sought to introduce two distinct and mutually exclusive causes of action—one based on unjustified enrichment and the other on a repayment agreement—without pleading them in the alternative. South African law requires that such inconsistent claims be pleaded in the alternative to avoid excipiability. The amendment, as formulated, would render the particulars of claim excipiable and cause prejudice to the respondents. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the amendment, holding that the claims cannot co-exist as a single cause of ac…

Source excerpt

• Pleadings Amendment
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Contractual Claims
• Alternativity Of Remedies

Di Trapani v WU (14359/2022)

Di Trapani v WU (14359/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 634 (25 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

14359/2022

Judge

Kazee

High Court judgment on tenant arrears, a disputed right of first refusal, and claims for compensation for improvements to leased property.

• Lease Agreement
• Arrear Rental
• Right Of First Refusal
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Improvements To Property
• Lease-agreement

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Kroucamp Plumbers (Pty) Ltd and Another (WC01/2024)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Kroucamp Plumbers (Pty) Ltd and Another (WC01/2024) [2025] ZAST 10 (13 June 2025)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

WC01/2024

Judge

D. Makhoba

The Special Tribunal set aside two public tenders to Kroucamp Plumbers, granted condonation for late filing, pierced the corporate veil, and dismissed the counterclaim.

• Public Procurement Irregularities
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condonation For Delay
• Conflict Of Interest

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (PTY) Ltd (041/2024)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (PTY) Ltd (041/2024) [2025] ZASCA 65 (20 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

041/2024

Judges

Mocumie, Kgoele, Baartman, Bloem, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that prescription began to run when Wamjay acquired knowledge of all material facts necessary to institute its claim, which occurred on 5 October 2012 when UJ communicated its repudiation and cancellation of the lease and cession agreement. The court rejected Wamjay's argument that prescription only commenced upon the Constitutional Court's judgment, finding that legal certainty or a legal conclusion is not required for prescription to begin. The exception for professional negligence claims against legal practitioners, as articulated in Le Roux, does not apply…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Professional Negligence Exception

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

Van Wyk v Venter N.O and Others (21072/2019)

Van Wyk v Venter N.O and Others (21072/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC 197; [2025] 3 All SA 572 (WCC) (12 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21072/2019

Judge

Moosa AJ

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for either unjustified enrichment or repayment of a loan. The documentary evidence, including WCP's financial records and signed annual financial statements, showed that the payments in question were credited to the plaintiff's loan account and not to the Trust. The oral agreements relied upon by the plaintiff were void for non-compliance with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act, and there was no corroborating evidence of enrichment at the plaintiff's expense. The plaintiff's loan claim was further undermined by…

Source excerpt

• Absolution From The Instance
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Causa Data Causa Non Secuta
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Oral Contracts
• Loan Agreements

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Fumile Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (60250/2018; 86068/2018)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Fumile Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (60250/2018; 86068/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 399 (14 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60250/2018; 86068/2018

Judge

le Grange

The High Court dismissed the Minister’s enrichment claim and Fumile’s counterclaim after finding that neither illegality nor the value of services was proved.

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Illegal Contract
• Counterclaim
• Proof Of Services
• Costs Order
• Unjustified-enrichment

Van Der Weele and Another v Da Costa (2023/123982)

Van Der Weele and Another v Da Costa (2023/123982) [2025] ZAGPJHC 198 (27 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/123982

Judge

PJ Du Plessis

The High Court referred an opposed motion to trial after finding serious factual disputes about a failed business venture, an acknowledgment of debt, and alleged duress.

• Unjustified Enrichment
• National Credit Act
• Duress
• Referral To Trial
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Referral-to-trial

Hindustan Products SA (Pty) Ltd v Gertenbach and Another (2023/107680)

Hindustan Products SA (Pty) Ltd v Gertenbach and Another (2023/107680) [2025] ZAGPJHC 108 (10 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/107680

Judge

N S Krüger

The High Court referred an unjustified-enrichment claim to trial after finding unresolved disputes about whether an heir was enriched by a deceased estate.

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Condictio Indebiti
• Inheritance Liability
• Litis Contestatio
• Motion Vs Action Procedure
• Unjustified-enrichment

Technologies Acceptance Receivable (Pty) Limited and Another v Pieter Toerien Productions CC t/a Theatre on the Bay and Others (4086/2020)

Technologies Acceptance Receivable (Pty) Limited and Another v Pieter Toerien Productions CC t/a Theatre on the Bay and Others (4086/2020) [2024] ZAWCHC 431 (18 December 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4086/2020

Judge

A Kantor

The court found that the handwritten amendment to the Master Rental Agreement (MRA) was ineffective because it was not signed by both parties as required by the non-variation clause. The contract remained in its unamended form, and the plaintiffs could not claim the higher rental amount. The cession agreements validly transferred rights, but the warranties and indemnities covered only the contract as it existed, not the purported amendment. Public policy did not justify disregarding the non-variation clause, as no evidence was presented of circumstances warranting such intervention. The count…

Source excerpt

• Non Variation Clause
• Contractual Cessions
• Public Policy Exception
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Contractual Warranties