ADMINISTRATOR, NATAL v TRUST BANK OF AFRICA LTD. (Appellate Division)
|
|
- Adela Cook
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SAFLII Note: This case was originally published by Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd. Juta retains copyright as far as it subsists. ADMINISTRATOR, NATAL v TRUST BANK OF AFRICA LTD (Appellate Division) 1979 March 5; May 25 Rumpff CJ, Jansen JA, Trollip JA, Joubert JA and Trengove JA 825 Case information: Appeal against a decision in the Natal Provincial Division (MOSTERT J). The facts appear from the judgment of RUMPFF CJ and from the report in 1978 (2) SA 256 (N). M L Mitchell for the appellant: A David Gordon SC for the respondent: B Mitchell in reply. Cur adv vult. Postea (May 25). Rumpff C J: In the present case the respondent in the Court a quo and in this Court could have argued that in our law negligent misrepresenta- tion does not exist as a delictual ground for action. That is what the exci- pient did in Suid-Afrikaanse Bantoetrust v Ross en Jacobz 1977 (3) SA 184 (T). Obviously under the influence of, inter alia, academical initial steps after the decisions in Perlman v Zoutendyk 1934 CPD 151 and Herschel v Mrupe 1954 (3) SA 464 (A) the Court in the Bantoetrust case at the exception stage pertinently decided that such a ground of action in- deed exists. The Court then also says: I doubt whether there is a single academical commentator who is opposed to
2 such an action. The (Afrikaans) expression nalatige wanvoorstelling, which is a translation of negligent misrepresentation, does not reflect, in con- nection with negligent misrepresentation as a delictual ground of action, the essential problem in our law and creates the impression of a represen- tation in a contractual content. In a contractual context misrepresenta- tion has a somewhat legal-technical meaning. It must be, eg, a represen- tation of an existing fact and therefore does not normally embrace the expression of an opinion or the giving of advice. This requirement is not necessarily applicable to a negligent misrepresentation. Perhaps the expression nalatige wanbewering ( negligent misstatement ) should rather be used, but, if the expression negligent misrepresentation is re- tained, the above-mentioned caveat should be borne in mind. The respondent in the present case not only accepted the decision in the Bantoetrust case but expressly submitted that such a ground of action in fact exists in our law and, inter alia, referred to a decision of the Natal Court in Greenfield Engineering Works (Pty) Ltd v NKR Construction (Pty) Ltd 1978 (4) SA 901 (N) in which the decision in the Bantoetrust case was followed. In the GreenfieldEngineering case reference is, inter alia, made to an article by Prof McKerron at 1 of the 1973 South African Law Journal ( Liability for Mere Pecuniary Loss in an Action under SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1979) (3) the lex Aquilia ) and an article by Prof Boberg in the 1972 Annual Survey o f South African Law at in which certain decided cases are discussed. In the judgment reference is also made to the following at 916 : B
3 As in the Bantoetrust case, we are not dealing in the present case, as far as the facts are concerned, with the concept of liability in general for pure patrimonial loss, but with the specific problem of patrimonial loss caused by negligent misstatement. In the present case a number of facts were placed before the Court a quo by means of a stated case and in the stated case it is not denied that negligent misstatement (outside contractual context) can lead to recoverable patrimonial loss. In the judgment of the Court a quo against which the appellant appeals, it was then also found that there is indeed a ground of action based on negligent misstatement, but it was found that the plaintiff could not succeed on the facts. The plaintiff in the case is now the appellant and there was in essence only one defendant, the pre- sent respondent. The judgment of the Court a quo can be found under Administrator, Natal v Bijo and Another 1978 (2) SA 256 (N). Bijo was the first defendant but because judgment by default had already been given against Bijo, the Court a quo referred to the respondent as defen- dant. Obviously the appellant relies on the averment that in our law com- pensation of patrimonial loss can be claimed for negligent misstatement. As far as the law is concerned this Court is, therefore, placed in a somewhat strange position. In effect both parties request this Court to approve what was said with little or no motivation in the Bantoetrust case. I think it can be accepted, from what different writers have written on the subject, that the right to compensation for pure patrimonial loss was recognized in the Roman law in certain limited cases but that this right was still relative to a thing or a corpus. It can also be accepted that in the Roman-Dutch law compensation for pure patrimonial loss was awarded in certain cases which indicates that Aquilian liability was extended beyond the Roman law boundary of damage to property. In this regard mention can be made of the judgment in Cape o f Good Hope Bank v Fischer 4 SC 368 in which reference is made to Voet and Matthaeus De Auctionibus ; Van Bynkershoek Obs Tumult 11, 195; Pieter Pauw Aanspreeklikheid vir Suiwer Vermoënskade in die Suid- Afrikaanse Reg in De Jure vol 1 at 23; J C van der Walt Risiko Aanspreeklikheid uit Onregmatige Daad at 309 (unpublished thesis); Prof Price Patrimonial Loss and Aquilian Liability 1950 THRHR 87. In whatever way the judgments of the different Judges in the Appellate Division in Herschel v Mrupe 1954 (3) SA 464 (A) are interpreted, it ap- pears to be clear that the existence of such a right in the South African
4 law was not rejected by the Appellate Division: Rather the right was 982 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1979) (3) recognized. The unsatisfactory state which has existed in our law since 831 the Herschel case, the differing judgments in Provincial Divisions subse- quent thereto and the attitude of both the appellant and the respondent in this Court are sound reasons as to why a judgment should now be given recognizing or rejecting the existence of such a right in our com- mon law. I am aware of the following which appears in the 1974 SALJ at 408: B The birthpangs of such a right of action have endured so long that the time has arrived, perhaps even with a Ceasarean section, that the child should be brought into the world. It should immediately be added that it can be foretold that this child will be a problem child. With the necessary love, and especially discipline, it can however play a useful role in legal life. In the investigation of this problem one can refer extensively to the Anglo-American legal systems. Indeed, Susan Scott mentions in her article on Nalatige Wanvoorstelling as Aksiegrond in die Suid- Afrikaanse Reg in THRHR 1977 at 176: The position is clearly very unsatisfactory and it is to be regretted that our Courts did not take more notice of the developments in the Anglo-American legal systems. This creates a problem however. In his article " Aquilian Liability for Negligent Statements in the 1950 SALJ at 139 Prof Price declares: "
5 831E For those who are fond of looking to the English law without any reser- vation it will also be useful to read the article of Prof Price in the 1959 Acta Juridica Aquilian Liability and the Duty of Care: A return to the Charge at 120. At 138 the following, inter alia, appears: ".." 831H In para 5 of his heads of argument appellant submitted with reference to the decisions in Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) at 597 and Minister o f Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A) at 34 that the social and economic development has reached the stage which makes it desirable that this Court, subject to the conditions mentioned in para 4 of the heads of argument, finally decides that a claim based on negligent misstatement which causes patrimonial loss, is recognized. Then para 6 reads as follows: SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1979) (3) 832B In a discussion of the judgment in the Bantoetrust case supra in TSAR 1977 (3) Prof J C van der Walt declares as follows at 273: The second factor which is of particular importance in the case of liability on the ground of negligent misrepresentation, is the fact that pure financial loss ie patrimonial loss which does not arise from injury to person or property is frequently in question. Especially in the Anglo-American law the recoverability of
6 such patrimonial loss was denied in principle for legal political reasons. The breaking down of this deep-seated English law approach and principle takes place very slowly. The original ground for this scepticism in regard to the fundamental protection of pure economical interests is again the liberalisticindividualistic in- spired fear for a too wide and arduous liability. Fleming (The Law o f Torts (1971) at 164) correctly writes: E The judgment in the Hedley Byrne case (above) apparently destroyed this prin- ciple, especially if one reads Lord Devlin s rejection thereof ( ): 832F The Hedley Byrne case did, however, not, as far as the English law is concerned, terminate the said nonsense. It thrives in the English law and ensures that still more nice distinctions are made (cf Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1965) 3 All ER 560; Electrochrome L td v Welsh Plastics L td (1968) 2 All ER 205; British Celanese L td v A H Hunt (Capacitors) L td (1969) 2 All ER 1252; SCM (UK) L td v Whittal and Son L td (1970) 2 All ER 417). I refer to the English law in this manner because in so far as the defini- tion of the principle is concerned, it will not assist much, in my opinion, to rely on the English law, especially in view of the difference between our law and the English law in respect of the origin of the ground of ac- tion. That in the solution of the problem of the limitation of the action certain factors in the English law may be taken into account which could also be considered in our law, can obviously not be denied. In my opinion the ground of action can and ought to be placed in the extended range of application of the lex Acuilia. From this it would follow that, according to our current norms, unlawfulness is required and a guilty mind. The fear of the so-called limitless liability can then
7 833 only be allayed if in every given case it is the task of the Court to decide whether in the particular circumstances there was a legal duty resting on the defendant not to make a misstatement to the plaintiff, and also whether the defendant, in the light of all the circumstances, exercised 984 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1979) (3) reasonable care, inter alia, in determining the correctness of his represen- tation. In the absence of a legal duty there is no unlawfulness. The Court will also keep the ground of action within reasonable limits by giving proper attention to the nature of the misstatement and the interpretation thereof and also by giving proper attention to the problem of causation. In any case it happens quite frequently that the Court is requested to solve similar problems which arise from misrepresentation in a contrac- tual context or from estoppel. It is a known judicial task. Because in practice, as in the present case, reference will be made to English decisions in regard to certain situations which may lead to what we regard as a legal duty, it is essential to indicate how basic the English concept of duty of care, although a monstrosity in our law, in this particular instance, link up with the concept of a legal duty as it should exist in our law, because policy considerations are also in question here. Millner in his Negligence in Modern Law (1967) refers at 24 e tseq to two elements of the duty of care concept, viz: (1) the negligence issue and (2) the duty issue. At 26 the following appears: H This last paragraph naturally also reflects the position in our common law,
8 notwithstanding the numerous references to the concept of " duty of care in our decided cases. The view of this writer that the un- foreseeable plaintiff rode home with rest must be seen in the light of the meaning of that expression in the English law. Fleming declares in The Law o f Torts 4th ed at 136: A In conclusion useful reference can also be made to the minority judg- ment of Lord Reid and Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest in Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Co Ltd and Another v Evatt (1971) 1 All ER 150 at 612 where the following was, inter alia, said: C Naturally, by way of elimination basic circumstances can in anticipation be excluded as grounds for a claim for damages as a result of a negligent misstatement. So the abovementioned minority judgment proceeds in regard to the facts of that case, and says: E What must, however, be kept in mind, is that in our law the liability SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1979) (3) flowing from negligent misstatement arises as delictual liability, outside the contractual context. It is unnecessary to decide whether there can be delictual liability within a contractual context, cf Hamman v Moolman 1968 (4) SA 340 (A) at 348.
9 As regards the facts of the present case, it is unnecessary to repeat the stated case fully, because that has already been done in 1978 (2) SA 256 (N). Section 9 (1) of Ord 19 of 1945 (N) provides that, if the Ad- ministrator (the plaintiff) decides to expropriate any land, he must cause a notice of expropriation to be served on the owner of such land. Sub- section (2) of s 19 provides that: "Every notice of this nature must either be served on the owner personally or be sent to him by registered post provided that the place where he is can be readily ascertained. It must be accepted in the present case, that the Administrator, through his officials, determined that Bijo, colonial born Indian No 8536/8537 of Ottowa, Natal became the registered owner of the land in It must also be accepted that the officials of the Administrator without pro- per investigation found that Mr Bijo, 50/52 Russom Street, Verulam was the Mr Bijo who was the. registered owner. As a result of this negligence a letter was sent to Mr Bijo who resided in Russom Street, Verulam and in that it was stated that he was the registered owner of 835 the land. Armed with this letter Bijo (in fact P Bijo) went to the defen- dant and identified himself as P Bijo of Russom Street, Verulam. Defen- dant is described as a company who carries on business, inter alia, as bankers and financial advisers and which also through its property divi- sion carries on business in property transactions. According to the stated case the function of the property division is to act as estate agents but usually not to give advice to clients in regard to compensation for ex- propriation. The defendant, however, admits that a certain Nel who acted on behalf of defendant, acted in the course of his service. As already said, the plaintiff himself, through his officials, gave out in the letter to Bijo that Bijo was the registered owner. Defendant, after having consulted with Bijo, wrote a letter to plaintiff and. said: " " 835C
10 At that stage, it can be accepted, that defendant foresaw that as a result of its representations and mediation an amount could eventually be paid out to Bijo. The first question which arises is whether there was a legal duty which placed the burden on the defendant not to refer in its letter to plaintiff to P Bijo as the registered owner of the land: It is clear that Bijo 986 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1979) (3) used the defendant as agent for the negotiations. In the present case plaintiff himself stated in writing that Bijo to whom the registered letter was posted, was the registered owner. Defendant must obviously have seen this letter and, therefore, accepted that plaintiff admitted that Bijo, who received the letter, was the registered owner. W hat defendant did was merely to identify his client and to repeat what plaintiff himself had declared in writing. Even if defendant, however, did not see the letter from plaintiff to Bijo and merely acted on the oral presentation of Bijo, the statement in his letter that P Bijo was the registered owner would still only be a statement to identify his client. Defendant could never have dreamt (leave alone reasonably expected) that plaintiff, on whom the statutory duty rested to pay compensation to the registered owner, would not have determined properly who the registered owner was. It appears clearly to me that defendant only acted as agent for the purposes of negotiation and in no other capacity whatever. It is naturally true that defendant committed an error but, in the particular circumstances of the present case, there was, in my opinion, no legal duty on defendant not to furnish an incorrect allegation regarding who the registered owner was, to the plaintiff. Even if it could be expected that defendant should have taken resonable steps to determine whether its statement was correct, it is, in my opinion, unrealistic of plaintiff to expect that the Court should find that defendant should have gone to the Deeds office (and in this case also should have taken further steps) to determine whether his client
11 was in fact the registered owner. In the present case any reasonable person in the position of the defendant could certainly have expected that plaintiff would not have made a mistake in offering compensation to a person who was not the registered owner and any reasonable steps which the defendant should have taken must be judged in the light of this fact. There is also still an obvious omission in the stated case. One looks in vain for an averment (which should have been an admission) that plain- tiff paid the amount to P Bijo as a result of the statement which defen- 836 dant made in his letter to plaintiff. Obviously the payment was not made as, a result of what appeared in defendant s letter, but on account of the error which plaintiff originally committed regarding Mr Bijo of 50/52 Russom Street, Verulam, as the registered owner. The appeal is dismis- sed with costs. Jansen JA, Trollip JA, Joubert JA and Trengove JA concurred. Appellant s Attorneys: Deputy State Attorneys, Natal and Bloemfontein. Respondent s Attorneys: Wartski, Greenberg & Partners, Durban; E G Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. SAFLII Note: This case was originally published by Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd. Juta retains copyright as far as it subsists.
SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1975) (3) (Translation) 590. MINISTER OF POLICE v. EWELS.
590-594 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1975) (3) 590 MINISTER OF POLICE v. EWELS. ( A ppellate D iv isio n.) 1975. March 17; May 23. R u m pff, C.J., Ja n se n, J.A., T rollep, J.A., M u ller, J.A. a n d V
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA LLOYD-GRAY LITHOGRAPHERS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT. CORAM : SMALBERGER, VIVIER, HARMS, SCOTT et ZULMAN JJA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: NEDCOR BANK LTD t/a NEDBANK APPELLANT v LLOYD-GRAY LITHOGRAPHERS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT CORAM : SMALBERGER, VIVIER, HARMS, SCOTT et ZULMAN
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 247/2000 In the matter between BoE Bank Ltd Appellant and Sonja Mathilda Ries Respondent Before: HARMS, SCHUTZ, CAMERON,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE Case number: 29/04 In the matter between: EKKEHARD CREUTZBURG EMIL EICH Appellant 1 st Appellant 2 nd and COMMERCIAL BANK
More informationCAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Vivier Adcj, Howie JA and Brand AJA
CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Citation Case No 495/99 Court Judge 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Supreme Court of Appeal Heard August 28, 2001 Vivier
More informationJORDAAN NO AND ANOTHER v VERWEY 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) 2002 (1) SA p643. Citation 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) Case No CA 271/2000. Court Eastern Cape Division
JORDAAN NO AND ANOTHER v VERWEY 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) 2002 (1) SA p643 Citation 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) Case No CA 271/2000 Court Eastern Cape Division Judge Erasmus J and Sandi AJ Heard March 26, 2001 Judgment
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case number: 4485/2016
More informationCase no 410/82 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) Between: LILLICRAP WASSENAAR AND PARTNERS. - and -
Case no 410/82 MC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) Between: LILLICRAP WASSENAAR AND PARTNERS Appellant - and - PILKINGTON BROTHERS (SOUTH AFRICA) (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Respondent
More informationJUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. [1] In the trial which lasted for two (2) days, applicant (plaintiff a quo) sued
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case no: 2656/2009 Date heard: 24.07.2012 Date delivered: 07.08.2012 In the matter between: ADUM TREVOR PLUMRIDGE Applicant / Plaintiff
More informationJOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES OF PENSION FUNDS. Whether or not the trustees of a pension fund are to be held jointly and severally
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES OF PENSION FUNDS JOHN NEWDIGATE 1. INTRODUCTION Whether or not the trustees of a pension fund are to be held jointly and severally liable for loss caused by the
More informationMEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT
MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS FORUM : SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE : MALAN AJA CASE NO : 640/06 DATE : 28 NOVEMBER 2007 JUDGMENT Judgement: Malan AJA: [1] This is an appeal with leave of the
More informationGAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [1] On 13 April 2006 the Director-General of Public Works' (or his delegate) entered
IN THE In the matter between GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case No: 3823/09 ti JSJzoto THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Excipient and KOVAC INVESTMENTS 289 (PTY)
More informationBLIND FAITH: A RESPONSE TO PROFESSORS NEETHLING AND POTGIETER ANTON FAGAN W P Schreiner Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town
NOTES 285 BLIND FAITH: A RESPONSE TO PROFESSORS NEETHLING AND POTGIETER ANTON FAGAN W P Schreiner Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town In a recent note, Wrongfulness and negligence
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the case of:- Case Nr: 2826/2012 MARIA ELIZABETH HANGER Plaintiff/Respondent and JOE REGAL 1 st Defendant / 1 st Applicant PETRA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: LEON BOSMAN N.O. IZAK
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007. In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007 In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN BEATRIX OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE First Applicant Second Applicant versus OOSTHUYSEN
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 994/2013 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND APPELLANT and MSUNDUZI MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case No. : 2631/2013 JACQUES VLOK Applicant versus SILVER CREST TRADING 154 (PTY) LTD MERCANTILE BANK LTD ENGEN
More informationJUDGMENT. This is an exception by the plaintiff to the defendant s plea and counterclaim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) NOT REPORTABLE Case No.: 6104/07 Date delivered: 16 May 2008 In the matter between: GAY BOOYSEN Plaintiff and GEOFFREY LYSTER WARREN SMITH Defendant
More informationMINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY v MOHOFE 2007 (4) SA 215 (SCA)
MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY v MOHOFE 2007 (4) SA 215 (SCA) Citation 2007 (4) SA 215 (SCA) Case No 200/2006 Court Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Howie P, Farlam JA, Nugent JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA Heard
More informationprincipal action. Applicant is a defendant in that action. In the principal action plaintiffs seek rectification of a Deed of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 496/2005 MARIA VAZLADELIS Applicant and CASTLE BRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL CC 1 st Respondent HAYDEN LEWIS
More informationTWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE
TWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE Alex Bruce* 1. Introduction In November 1986, the High Court handed down
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Appeal number: A1/2016
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 54/00 SIAS MOISE Plaintiff versus TRANSITIONAL LOCAL COUNCIL OF GREATER GERMISTON Defendant Delivered on : 21 September 2001 JUDGMENT KRIEGLER J: [1] On 4
More information141/94 REPORTABLE CASE NO. 246/93 EB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: and
141/94 REPORTABLE CASE NO. 246/93 EB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER APPELLANT and A M KADIR RESPONDENT CORAM: HEFER, NESTADT,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1548/07. In the matter between: and
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1548/07 In the matter between: NTOMBENKOSI HLOMZA Plaintiff and THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY THE STATION COMMISSIONER,
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2009
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) CASE No: A 178/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BLAIR HUBBARD and GERT MOSTERT Appellant/Defendant
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA DR ELIZABETH JOHANNA DE NECKER MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FREE STATE PROVINCE
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No. : 2399/2012 DR ELIZABETH JOHANNA DE NECKER Plaintiff and MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FREE STATE PROVINCE
More informationH.M. MUSI, JP et HANCKE, J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 201/2007 ROBIN GERALDINE GRIESEL and LENRé LIEBENBERG CORAM: H.M. MUSI, JP et HANCKE, J JUDGMENT:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 In the matter between:- LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT and TSEKISO POULO RESPONDENT CORAM: FARLAM,
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD
1 FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ NO: 021/2005 TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and FRAMESBY HIGH SCHOOL THE MEMBER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE
More informationMEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 337/2013 DATE HEARD: 18/8/14 DATE DELIVERED: 22/8/14 REPORTABLE In the matter between: IKAMVA ARCHITECTS CC APPELLANT and MEC FOR
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: 115/12 THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE APPELLANT and LEON MARIUS VON BENECKE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Minister of Defence
More informationThe Implications of Negligent Misrepresentation in Law of Delict: A Judicial Rendition
Journal of Scientific Research & Reports 5(7): 532-541, 2015; Article no.jsrr.2015.120 ISSN: 2320-0227 SCIENCEDOMAIN international www.sciencedomain.org The Implications of Negligent Misrepresentation
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA KRISHNER(KRISHNA) MOODLEY
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 6911/2008 In matter between: KRISHNER(KRISHNA) MOODLEY Plaintiff and JANE MAY MOODLEY Defendant HEARD ON: 23 APRIL 2009 JUDGMENT
More informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) (1) REPORTABLE: Electronic publishing. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3) REVISED...... Case No. 2015/11210 In the matter between:
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 754/2012 In the matter between: SOLENTA AVIATION (PTY) LTD Appellant and AVIATION @ WORK (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation:
More information(3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;... <'
CASE N0:768/2013 DELETE WHJCHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: vpo (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: y(ino (3;)c\~~,i.Ji_..,~ DATE ~ - ;....
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case No: 409/2015 MATHEWS SIPHO LELAKA APPELLANT And THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Lelaka v The State (409/15)
More informationHeld, that before V had signed the document the respondent had substituted himself as the offeror.
DRIFTWOOD PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD v McLEAN 1971 (3) SA 591 (A) Citation 1971 (3) SA 591 (A) Court Appellate Division Judge van Blerk JA, Holmes JA, Jansen JA, Muller JA and Kotzé AJA Heard May 4, 1971 Judgment
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case No: 1036/2016 ROAD ACCIDENT FUND APPELLANT and KHOMOTSO POLLY MPHIRIME RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Road Accident
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PRITCHARD PROPERTIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED. JANSEN, KOTZé, TRENGOVE, BOSHOFF, JJ A et CILLIé, A J A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: PRITCHARD PROPERTIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Appellant AND BASIL KOULIS Respondent Coram: JANSEN, KOTZé, TRENGOVE, BOSHOFF,
More informationJUDGMENT: 8 NOVEMBER [1] This is an application by the Defendant to permit the joinder of Dr. Smith (the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 21453/10 In the matter between: MICHAEL DAVID VAN DEN HEEVER In his representative capacity on behalf of Pierre van den Heever
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. ethekwini MUNICIPALITY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 1068/2016 In the matter between: ethekwini MUNICIPALITY APPELLANT and MOUNTHAVEN (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Neutral citation: ethekwini
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ
CLAIM NO 275 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD 2014 IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review AND IN THE MATTER of section 13 of the Belize City Council Act, Cap 85
More informationIN THE SUPREME COIRT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
Case Nr 45/94 IN THE SUPREME COIRT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: BASIL BRIAN NEL NO Appellant and THE BODY CORPORATE OF THE SEAWAYS BUILDING THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, CAPE TOWN
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number 90/2004 Reportable In the matter between: NORTHERN FREE STATE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY APPELLANT and VG MATSHAI RESPONDENT
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: J 420/08 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL Applicant WORKERS UNION And NORTH WEST HOUSING CORPORATION 1 st Respondent MEC
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1977) (3) (Translation)
378-394 SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REPORTS (1977) (3) creating confusion, plaintiff quite clearly stated that the goods sold (V the carpets) were delivered by installation thereof or laying, as it^ called in para.
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 288/2017 OCEAN ECHO PROPERTIES 327 CC FIRST APPELLANT ANGELO GIANNAROS SECOND APPELLANT and OLD MUTUAL LIFE
More informationUnderlined portions (in red) indicate the amendments or additions): 9.4. The following practice direction is in force in regard to opposed
AMENDMENTS TO PRACTICE DIRECTIVE 9.4 (HEADS OF ARGUMENT IN OPPOSED MOTIONS) Underlined portions (in red) indicate the amendments or additions): 9.4. The following practice direction is in force in regard
More informationFOREWORD... 1 LAW... 2
FOREWORD... 1 LAW... 2 GCE Advanced Level... 2 Paper 9084/01 Law and the Legal Process... 2 Paper 9084/02 Legal Liabilities... 3 This booklet contains reports written by Examiners on the work of candidates
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 339/09 MEC FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) and TEMBA MTOKWANA Respondent Neutral citation: 2010) CORAM: MEC v Mtokwana
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no. 407/87 E du P IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLATE DIVISION In the matter between: DOCTOR OSCAR DHLOMO Appellant and NATAL NEWSPAPERS (PTY) LIMITED First Respondent I M WYLLIE Second
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON FOR THE APPLICANT : ADV.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE Case No: 1601/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON Applicant and SAHRON DAMON BFP ATTORNEYS THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN Case No: 703/2012 Plaintiff and H C REINECKE Defendant JUDGMENT BY: VAN DER MERWE, J HEARD
More informationTHE JOHANNESBURG COUNTRY CLUB. Coram: HARMS, MARAIS AND CAMERON JJA Heard: 20 FEBRUARY 2004 Delivered: 18 MARCH 2004 Exemption clause interpretation
Reportable Case No 152/2003 In the matter between: THE JOHANNESBURG COUNTRY CLUB Appellant and ELEANOR EDITH STOTT PETER DENNIS MAY NO Respondent Third Party a quo Coram: HARMS, MARAIS AND CAMERON JJA
More information# 2002 University of South Africa Revised edition 2011
# 2002 University of South Africa Revised edition 2011 All rights reserved Printed and published by the University of South Africa Muckleneuk, Pretoria PVL3703/1/2012±2014 98763881 3B2 iii Contents Study
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable Case no. D552/12 In the matter between: HEALTH AND OTHER SERVICES PERSONNEL TRADE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA TM SOMERS First
More informationTHE STATE v. MANDELA AND OTHERS. HEADS OF ARGUMENT. 1. In Count 1 the accused are charged with being party to a common purpose in terms of which
THE STATE v. MANDELA AND OTHERS. HEADS OF ARGUMENT Want of Particularity: Count 1 1. In Count 1 the accused are charged with being party to a common purpose in terms of which (i) (ii) Persons were recruited
More informationSUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. BLUE CHIP 2 (PTY) LTD t/a BLUE CHIP 49 CEDRICK DEAN RYNEVELDT & 26 OTHERS
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 499/2015 In the matter between: BLUE CHIP 2 (PTY) LTD t/a BLUE CHIP 49 APPELLANT and CEDRICK DEAN RYNEVELDT & 26 OTHERS RESPONDENTS
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no 332/08 In the matter between: ABSA BROKERS (PTY) LTD Appellant and RMB FINANCIAL SERVICES RMB ASSET MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTION
More informationState Reporting Bureau
State Reporting Bureau \ac03js sc Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made
More informationJUDGMENT (For delivery)
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 28/13 [2013] ZACC 20 In the matter between: HUGH GLENISTER Applicant and PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationComplainant: Adv Johnathan Kaplan, instructed by Mr L Fuchs, attorney Harry Goss Attorneys.
DATE OF HEARING: 14 FEBRUARY 2008 CASE NUMBER: 03/2008 LOONAT COMPLAINANT vs RADIO ISLAM RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL: Prof Kobus van Rooyen SC (Chairperson) Prof Henning Viljoen Prof Jacqueline Heaton Complainant:
More informationat Unit [ ], Mdantsane, Local Municipality of Buffalo City, is her
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE CLCLB In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER KETLWAELETSWE And THE STATE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE CLCLB-066-06 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER KETLWAELETSWE And THE STATE APPELLANT RESPONDENT Mr. Attorney P.A. Kgalemang for the Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON)
2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISON) UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: Case No: 35420 / 03 Date heard: 17 & 21/02/2006 Date of judgment: 4/8/2006 PAUL JACOBUS SMIT PLAINTIFF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE CASE NO: A221/06 DATE: 21/05/2007 THE STATE APPELLANT V OSCAR NZIMANDE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R D CLAASSEN J: 1 This is an appeal
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case Number: 1865/2005 CHRISTOPHER MGATYELLWA PATRICK NDYEBO NCGUNGCA CHRISTOPHER MZWABANTU JONAS 1 st Plaintiff
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL JANIN CARIBBEAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED. and [1] ERNEST CLARENCE WILKINSON [2] WILKINSON, WILKINSON & WILKINSON
GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2010/001 JANIN CARIBBEAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and [1] ERNEST CLARENCE WILKINSON [2] WILKINSON, WILKINSON & WILKINSON Appellant Respondents Before: The Hon. Mde. Janice
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case No: 69/AM/Dec01. In the matter between: and. 1 st Intervenor. Mike s Chicken (Pty) Ltd
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 69/AM/Dec01 In the matter between: Astral Foods Limited Applicant and Competition Commission Respondent Mike s Chicken (Pty) Ltd 1 st Intervenor Daybreak
More informationNCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG)
1 of 6 2012/11/06 03:08 PM NCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) 2010 (6) SA p166 Citation 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) Case No 41/2009 Court Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
More information[1] Defendant excepted to the plaintiff s particulars of claim on the grounds that
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Reportable CASE NO: 17701/2013 LUDWIG LILLIE Plaintiff And PENELOPE ANN BERRY Defendant JUDGMENT: 07 October
More informationCASE NO: 1070/2009 DATE HEARD: 11/02/10 DATE DELIVERED: 22/2/10 NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 1070/2009 DATE HEARD: 11/02/10 DATE DELIVERED: 22/2/10 NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: NOMZAMO GEZA APPLICANT AND THE MINISTER
More informationIn the matter between: CASE NO. 1783/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) In the matter between: CASE NO. 1783/2012 ONGEZWA MKHITHA PLAINTIFF VS ROAD ACCIDENT FUND MEC FOR HEALTH, EASTERN CAPE 1 ST DEFENDANT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT FIRST NATIONAL BANK (A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LTD) FIRST APPELLANT SCENEMATIC ONE (PTY) LTD
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 20832/14 In the matter between: FIRST NATIONAL BANK (A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LTD) FIRST APPELLANT THOMAS JOHANNES NAUDE
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Reportable Case no. 6802/2013 In the matter between: JOHAN DURR Excipient /Plaintiff and LE NOE NEELS BARNARDT CHARLES DICKINSON First
More informationNADARAJ NARAINSAMY PERUMAL APPLICANT J G BAYETT FIRST RESPONDENT AUCTION ALLIANCE KZN (PTY) LTD SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO.: 14337/2007 In the matter between NADARAJ NARAINSAMY PERUMAL APPLICANT and J G BAYETT FIRST RESPONDENT AUCTION ALLIANCE KZN (PTY)
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No. : 2924/09 WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION Plaintiff and CARLOS NUNES CC Defendant HEARD ON: 3 DECEMBER 2009 JUDGMENT
More informationJUDGMENT. Leymunlall Nandrame and others (Appellants) v Lomas Ramsaran (Respondent) (Mauritius)
Easter Term [2015] UKPC 20 Privy Council Appeal No 0104 of 2012 JUDGMENT Leymunlall Nandrame and others (Appellants) v Lomas Ramsaran (Respondent) (Mauritius) From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before
More informationThe first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the. terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa.
2 Introduction 1. This matter came to court by way of action. The first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the second, third and fourth plaintiffs who are all companies registered
More informationand MUNICIPALITY OF NKONKOBE
Not reportable In the High Court of South Africa (South Eastern Cape Local Division) (Port Elizabeth High Court) Case No 2356/2006 Delivered: In the matter between PETER FRANCE N.O. HILLARY BARRIS N.O.
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 4/95 ENSIGN-BICKFORD (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LIMITED BULK MINING EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED DANTEX EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED 1st
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN CASE NO: 13338/2008 NHLANHLA AZARIAH GASA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL, DURBAN CASE NO: 13338/2008 In the matter between: NHLANHLA AZARIAH GASA Applicant and CAMILLA JANE SINGH N.O. First Respondent ANGELINE S NENHLANHLA GASA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 14231/14 In the matter between: PETER McHENDRY APPLICANT and WYNAND LOUW GREEFF FIRST RESPONDENT RENSCHE GREEFF SECOND RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA. ABDOOL KADER MOOSA N.O...First Appellant. MAHOMED FEROUSE MOOSA N.O...
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationEASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS SKBHCVAP2014/0017 BETWEEN: In the matter of Condominium Property registered as Condominium #5 known as Nelson Spring Condominium
More informationIMPERIAL BANK LIMITED EUROPEAN METAL TRADING (AFRICA) (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED REASONS FOR THE ORDER HANDED DOWN ON 10 AUGUST 2010
IN THE KWAZULU NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case Number: 2820/2010 2821/2010 2822/2010 2823/2010 2824/2010 2825/2010 2826/2010 2829/2010 In the matter between: IMPERIAL BANK LIMITED
More informationGUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationPage 1 of 7 REGAL v AFRICAN SUPERSLATE (PTY) LTD 1962 (3) SA 18 (A) 1962 (3) SA p18 Citation 1962 (3) SA 18 (A) Court Appellate Division Judge Steyn CJ, Beyers JA, Ogilvie Thompson JA, Botha JA and Van
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number : 521/06 Reportable In the matter between : BODY CORPORATE OF GREENACRES APPELLANT and GREENACRES UNIT 17 CC GREENACRES UNIT 18 CC FIRST RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/12763 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] On Thursday 28 March 2002 at approximately 14h00, the appellant s
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION REPORTABLE CASE NO: AR 47/2008 In the matter between: A CHETTY APPELLANT and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT GORVEN J [1] On Thursday
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN. t/a FNB INSURANCE BROKERS JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED CASE NO. 14495/14 t/a FNB INSURANCE BROKERS Applicant and ANILCHUND PRITHIPAL WESTWOOD INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No 427/96 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In die matter of: GNH OFFICE AUTOMATION C.C. First Appellant NAUGIS INVESTMENTS C.C. Second Appellant and PROVINCIAL
More informationJUDGMENT THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 31739/2015. In the matter between: And
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 31739/2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 26 May 2016.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No 470/96 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: SANTAM LIMITED Appellant and MOHAMED NAEEM SAYED Respondent CORAM: VAN HEERDEN DCJ, HOWIE, PLEWMAN JJA, FARLAM et NGOEPE
More information