Lubbe v Volkskas Bpk 1991 (1) SA 398 (O)

Lubbe v Volkskas Bpk 1991 (1) SA 398 (O)

Issue: Whether a bank is liable to a customer for the losses suffered by the customer as a result of the bank's failure to detect fraudulent withdrawals from the customer's account.

Facts:

Lubbe, a customer of Volkskas Bpk (Volkskas), opened a savings account with Volkskas. Lubbe deposited a large sum of money into the account.

An unknown person fraudulently obtained Lubbe's account number and PIN number. The unknown person then used the account number and PIN number to make a series of fraudulent withdrawals from Lubbe's account.

Volkskas failed to detect the fraudulent withdrawals. As a result, Lubbe suffered a significant financial loss.

Lubbe sued Volkskas for the losses he had suffered. Volkskas argued that it was not liable to Lubbe for the losses because the fraudulent withdrawals had been made without its knowledge or consent.

Held:

The Court held that Volkskas was liable to Lubbe for the losses he had suffered. The Court reasoned that Volkskas had a contractual duty to Lubbe to take reasonable care to protect his account from fraud. Volkskas had breached this duty by failing to detect the fraudulent withdrawals.

Key Facts:

• A customer opened a savings account with a bank.
• The customer deposited a large sum of money into the account.
• An unknown person fraudulently obtained the customer's account number and PIN number.
• The unknown person then used the account number and PIN number to make a series of fraudulent withdrawals from the customer's account.
• The bank failed to detect the fraudulent withdrawals.
• As a result, the customer suffered a significant financial loss.
• The customer sued the bank for the losses he had suffered.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the bank was liable to the customer for the losses he had suffered because the bank had a contractual duty to the customer to take reasonable care to protect his account from fraud.
• The Court reasoned that the bank had breached this duty by failing to detect the fraudulent withdrawals.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Lubbe v Volkskas Bpk 1991 (1) SA 398 (O) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarifies the law relating to the liability of banks to their customers for losses suffered by the customers as a result of fraudulent withdrawals from the customers' accounts.

Van Wezel v Van Wezel’s Trustee 1924 AD 409

Van Wezel v Van Wezel’s Trustee 1924 AD 409

Issue: Whether a building can be regarded as immovable property if it is attached to the land in such a way that it cannot be removed without causing substantial damage to either the building or the land.

Facts:

The applicant, Van Wezel, was the owner of a farm. On the farm, there was a building that had been erected by a previous owner. The building was attached to the land in such a way that it could not be removed without causing substantial damage to either the building or the land.

Van Wezel became insolvent and his estate was placed under the administration of a trustee. The trustee claimed that the building was immovable property and that it therefore formed part of Van Wezel's insolvent estate.

Van Wezel disputed the trustee's claim, arguing that the building was movable property and that it therefore did not form part of his insolvent estate.

Held:

The Appellate Division held that the building was immovable property and that it therefore formed part of Van Wezel's insolvent estate.

Key Facts:

• A person owned a farm on which there was a building.
• The building had been erected by a previous owner.
• The building was attached to the land in such a way that it could not be removed without causing substantial damage to either the building or the land.
• The person became insolvent and his estate was placed under the administration of a trustee.
• The trustee claimed that the building was immovable property and that it therefore formed part of the person's insolvent estate.
• The person disputed the trustee's claim, arguing that the building was movable property and that it therefore did not form part of his insolvent estate.

Reasons:

The Appellate Division held that the building was immovable property because:

• The building was attached to the land in such a way that it could not be removed without causing substantial damage to either the building or the land.
• The building was therefore a permanent part of the land.

The Court also held that the fact that the building had been erected by a previous owner was irrelevant. The Court reasoned that once the building had been attached to the land, it became part of the land and it could no longer be regarded as movable property.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Van Wezel v Van Wezel’s Trustee 1924 AD 409 is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the classification of property as movable or immovable.

Peens v Botha-Odendaal 1980 (2) SA 381 (O)

Peens v Botha-Odendaal 1980 (2) SA 381 (O)

Issue: Whether a person who has made a payment to another person under a mistake of law is entitled to recover the payment, even if the other person has changed their position in reliance on the payment.

Facts:

Peens, a person, entered into a contract with Botha-Odendaal, a person, in terms of which Peens agreed to sell a farm to Botha-Odendaal. The contract provided that Peens would pay Botha-Odendaal a deposit of R100 000.00 upon the signing of the contract.

Peens paid Botha-Odendaal the deposit of R100 000.00 on 1 January 1980. However, Peens subsequently discovered that he was not legally obliged to sell the farm to Botha-Odendaal. Peens had made a mistake of law when he entered into the contract with Botha-Odendaal.

Peens demanded that Botha-Odendaal return the deposit of R100 000.00. Botha-Odendaal refused to return the deposit, arguing that Peens had changed his position in reliance on the payment and that it would be unfair to require Botha-Odendaal to repay the money.

Peens then sued Botha-Odendaal for the return of the deposit of R100 000.00.

Held:

The Court held that Peens was entitled to recover the deposit of R100 000.00 from Botha-Odendaal. The Court reasoned that Peens had made the payment to Botha-Odendaal under a mistake of law and that he was therefore entitled to recover the payment, even though Botha-Odendaal had changed his position in reliance on the payment.

Key Facts:

• A person entered into a contract with another person in terms of which the person agreed to sell a farm to the other person.
• The contract provided that the person would pay the other person a deposit upon the signing of the contract.
• The person paid the other person the deposit.
• However, the person subsequently discovered that he was not legally obliged to sell the farm to the other person. The person had made a mistake of law when he entered into the contract with the other person.
• The person demanded that the other person return the deposit.
• The other person refused to return the deposit, arguing that the person had changed his position in reliance on the payment and that it would be unfair to require the other person to repay the money.
• The person sued the other person for the return of the deposit.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the person was entitled to recover the deposit from the other person because the person had made the payment to the other person under a mistake of law and that he was therefore entitled to recover the payment, even though the other person had changed his position in reliance on the payment.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Peens v Botha-Odendaal 1980 (2) SA 381 (O) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the rights of persons who have made payments to other persons under a mistake of law.

Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Anglo American (OFS) Housing Co Ltd 1960 (3) SA 642 (A)

Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Anglo American (OFS) Housing Co Ltd 1960 (3) SA 642 (A)

Issue: Whether the value of vacant stands for transfer duty purposes includes the value of buildings constructed on the stands before transfer.

Facts:

OFS Land and Estate Co (Pty) Ltd sold 329 vacant stands to Anglo American (OFS) Housing Co Ltd (the respondent) on the condition that the respondent could commence with building work on the stands, but the stands would only be transferred into its name once the Town Council approved the town plans. The purchase price was the price of the land excluding the value of the buildings.

The respondent constructed buildings on the stands before transfer. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue (the appellant) assessed the transfer duty payable by the respondent on the basis of the value of the land and the buildings. The respondent objected to the assessment, arguing that the value of the stands for transfer duty purposes should not include the value of the buildings.

Held:

The Appellate Division upheld the respondent's objection. The Court held that the value of the stands for transfer duty purposes did not include the value of the buildings constructed on the stands before transfer.

Key Facts:

• A company sold vacant stands to another company.
• The purchase price was the price of the land excluding the value of the buildings.
• The buyer constructed buildings on the stands before transfer.
• The Commissioner of Inland Revenue assessed the transfer duty payable by the buyer on the basis of the value of the land and the buildings.
• The buyer objected to the assessment, arguing that the value of the stands for transfer duty purposes should not include the value of the buildings.

Reasons:

The Court held that the value of the stands for transfer duty purposes did not include the value of the buildings constructed on the stands before transfer because:

• The buyer had not acquired any right to the buildings at the time of the sale.
• The buyer had only acquired the right to build on the land.
• The buildings were not part of the land at the time of the sale.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Anglo American (OFS) Housing Co Ltd 1960 (3) SA 642 (A) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the value of vacant stands for transfer duty purposes.

JOT Motors (Edms) Bpk h/a Vaal Datsun v Standard Kredietkorporasie Bpk 1984 (2) SA 510 (T)

JOT Motors (Edms) Bpk h/a Vaal Datsun v Standard Kredietkorporasie Bpk 1984 (2) SA 510 (T)

Issue: Whether a person who has been enriched by the wrongful act of another person is liable to return the enrichment, even if the person who has been enriched was not aware of the wrongful act.

Facts:

JOT Motors (Edms) Bpk h/a Vaal Datsun (JOT Motors), a company, was the owner of a motor dealership. Standard Kredietkorporasie Bpk (Standard Credit), a company, was a finance company.

JOT Motors had a hire-purchase agreement with Standard Credit in terms of which JOT Motors financed the purchase of motor vehicles from suppliers. Under the agreement, JOT Motors was required to deliver the motor vehicles to Standard Credit's premises within a certain period of time after taking possession of them.

JOT Motors took possession of a number of motor vehicles from its suppliers, but it failed to deliver the motor vehicles to Standard Credit's premises within the required time period. JOT Motors instead sold the motor vehicles to third parties.

Standard Credit discovered that JOT Motors had failed to deliver the motor vehicles to its premises and demanded that JOT Motors return the proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles. JOT Motors refused to return the proceeds of the sale, arguing that it was not liable to do so because it had not been aware that it was in breach of the hire-purchase agreement at the time it sold the motor vehicles to third parties.

Standard Credit then sued JOT Motors for the return of the proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles.

Held:

The Court held that JOT Motors was liable to return the proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles to Standard Credit. The Court reasoned that JOT Motors had been enriched by the wrongful act of selling the motor vehicles that belonged to Standard Credit and that JOT Motors was therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though it was not aware of its wrongdoing at the time.

Key Facts:

• A motor dealership had a hire-purchase agreement with a finance company in terms of which the dealership financed the purchase of motor vehicles from suppliers.
• Under the agreement, the dealership was required to deliver the motor vehicles to the finance company's premises within a certain period of time after taking possession of them.
• The dealership took possession of a number of motor vehicles from its suppliers, but it failed to deliver the motor vehicles to the finance company's premises within the required time period.
• The dealership instead sold the motor vehicles to third parties.
• The finance company discovered that the dealership had failed to deliver the motor vehicles to its premises and demanded that the dealership return the proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles.
• The dealership refused to return the proceeds of the sale, arguing that it was not liable to do so because it had not been aware that it was in breach of the hire-purchase agreement at the time it sold the motor vehicles to third parties.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the dealership was liable to return the proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles to the finance company.
• The Court reasoned that the dealership had been enriched by the wrongful act of selling the motor vehicles that belonged to the finance company and that the dealership was therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though it was not aware of its wrongdoing at the time.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in JOT Motors (Edms) Bpk h/a Vaal Datsun v Standard Kredietkorporasie Bpk 1984 (2) SA 510 (T) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have been enriched by the wrongful act of another person.

Ex parte Estate Borland 1961 (1) SA 6 (SR)

Ex parte Estate Borland 1961 (1) SA 6 (SR)

Issue: Whether the principle of unjust enrichment can be used to create new enrichment actions in South African law.

Facts:

Borland, a person, died and left a will in which he bequeathed his estate to his wife, Borland's Estate. Borland's Estate was the executor of Borland's will.

Borland's Estate discovered that Borland had been making payments to a third party, Mr. Smith, for a number of years. Borland's Estate was unsure whether the payments were valid debts or whether they had been made by Borland under a mistake of fact.

Borland's Estate applied to the Court for an order declaring that the payments made by Borland to Mr. Smith were invalid and that Mr. Smith was liable to repay the payments to Borland's Estate.

Held:

The Court granted Borland's Estate the order it sought. The Court held that the principle of unjust enrichment could be used to create new enrichment actions in South African law. The Court reasoned that the principle of unjust enrichment is a broad principle that is not limited to the specific enrichment actions that are recognized by Roman-Dutch law.

Key Facts:

• A person died and left a will in which he bequeathed his estate to his wife.
• The executor of the will discovered that the person had been making payments to a third party for a number of years.
• The executor of the will was unsure whether the payments were valid debts or whether they had been made by the person under a mistake of fact.
• The executor of the will applied to the Court for an order declaring that the payments made by the person to the third party were invalid and that the third party was liable to repay the payments to the executor of the will.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the principle of unjust enrichment could be used to create new enrichment actions in South African law.
• The Court reasoned that the principle of unjust enrichment is a broad principle that is not limited to the specific enrichment actions that are recognized by Roman-Dutch law.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Ex parte Estate Borland 1961 (1) SA 6 (SR) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the principle of unjust enrichment and the availability of enrichment actions in South African law.

Brunsdon's Estate v Brunsdon's Estate and Others 1920 CPD 159

Brunsdon's Estate v Brunsdon's Estate and Others 1920 CPD 159

Issue: Whether a person who has been enriched by the wrongful act of another person is liable to return the enrichment, even if the person who has been enriched was not aware of the wrongful act.

Facts:

Brunsdon, a person, died and left a will in which he bequeathed his estate to his wife, Brunsdon's Estate. Brunsdon's Estate and Others, persons, were the executors of Brunsdon's will.

Brunsdon's Estate and Others sold certain of Brunsdon's assets to a third party, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was unaware that the assets belonged to Brunsdon's estate at the time he purchased them.

Brunsdon's Estate and Others then used the proceeds from the sale of the assets to pay off their own debts.

Brunsdon's Estate then discovered that Brunsdon's Estate and Others had sold certain of Brunsdon's assets to Mr. Smith without authorisation. Brunsdon's Estate demanded that Brunsdon's Estate and Others return the proceeds from the sale of the assets. Brunsdon's Estate and Others argued that they were not liable to return the proceeds of the sale because they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.

Brunsdon's Estate then sued Brunsdon's Estate and Others for the return of the proceeds from the sale of the assets.

Held:

The Court held that Brunsdon's Estate and Others were liable to return the proceeds from the sale of the assets to Brunsdon's Estate. The Court reasoned that Brunsdon's Estate and Others had been enriched by the wrongful act of selling Brunsdon's assets without authorisation and that Brunsdon's Estate and Others were therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.

Key Facts:

• A person died and left a will in which he bequeathed his estate to his wife.
• The executors of the will sold certain of the person's assets to a third party without authorisation.
• The third party was unaware that the assets belonged to the person's estate at the time he purchased them.
• The executors of the will used the proceeds from the sale of the assets to pay off their own debts.
• The person's wife discovered that the executors of the will had sold certain of the person's assets without authorisation and demanded that they return the proceeds from the sale.
• The executors of the will argued that they were not liable to return the proceeds of the sale because they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.
• The person's wife sued the executors of the will for the return of the proceeds from the sale.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the executors of the will were liable to return the proceeds from the sale of the assets to the person's wife because the executors of the will had been enriched by the wrongful act of selling the person's assets without authorisation and that the executors of the will were therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though they had used the proceeds to pay off their own debts.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Brunsdon's Estate v Brunsdon's Estate and Others 1920 CPD 159 is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have been enriched by the wrongful act of another person.

Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd v Grobler NO 1988 (2) SA 676 (BA)

Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd v Grobler NO 1988 (2) SA 676 (BA)

Issue: Whether the principle of unjust enrichment can be used to create new enrichment actions in South African law.

Facts:

Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd (Boikhutsong), a company, entered into a contract with Grobler NO, a person, for the construction of a shopping center. The contract provided that Boikhutsong would pay Grobler NO a certain amount of money upon the completion of the shopping center.

Grobler NO completed the construction of the shopping center, but Boikhutsong refused to pay Grobler NO the amount of money agreed upon in the contract. Boikhutsong argued that it was not liable to pay Grobler NO the money because Grobler NO had failed to comply with certain of the terms of the contract.

Grobler NO then sued Boikhutsong for the payment of the money. Boikhutsong argued that it was not liable to pay Grobler NO the money because Grobler NO had breached the contract. Boikhutsong also argued that it was entitled to counterclaim against Grobler NO for the damages that it had suffered as a result of Grobler NO's breach of contract.

Held:

The Court held that Boikhutsong was liable to pay Grobler NO the money agreed upon in the contract. The Court reasoned that Boikhutsong had benefited from the construction of the shopping center and that it was therefore liable to pay Grobler NO for the value of the benefit, even though Grobler NO had breached the contract.

The Court also held that Boikhutsong was entitled to counterclaim against Grobler NO for the damages that it had suffered as a result of Grobler NO's breach of contract.

Key Facts:

• A company entered into a contract with a person for the construction of a shopping center.
• The contract provided that the company would pay the person a certain amount of money upon the completion of the shopping center.
• The person completed the construction of the shopping center, but the company refused to pay the person the amount of money agreed upon in the contract.
• The company argued that it was not liable to pay the person the money because the person had failed to comply with certain of the terms of the contract.
• The person sued the company for the payment of the money.
• The company argued that it was not liable to pay the person the money because the person had breached the contract.
• The company also argued that it was entitled to counterclaim against the person for the damages that it had suffered as a result of the person's breach of contract.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the company was liable to pay the person the money agreed upon in the contract because the company had benefited from the construction of the shopping center and that it was therefore liable to pay the person for the value of the benefit, even though the person had breached the contract.
• The Court also held that the company was entitled to counterclaim against the person for the damages that it had suffered as a result of the person's breach of contract.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd v Grobler NO 1988 (2) SA 676 (BA) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the principle of unjust enrichment and the availability of enrichment actions in South African law.

Weilbach v Grobler 1982 (2) SA 15 (O)

Weilbach v Grobler 1982 (2) SA 15 (O)

Issue: Whether a person who has made a payment to another person under a mistake of fact is entitled to recover the payment, even if the other person has changed their position in reliance on the payment.

Facts:

Weilbach, a person, entered into a contract with Grobler, a person, for the purchase of a farm. The contract provided that Weilbach was to pay Grobler a deposit of R100 000.00 upon the signing of the contract.

Weilbach paid Grobler the deposit of R100 000.00 on 1 January 1981. However, Weilbach subsequently discovered that the farm was subject to a servitude that gave another person the right to graze their cattle on the farm. Weilbach was not aware of the servitude at the time he paid Grobler the deposit.

Weilbach demanded that Grobler return the deposit of R100 000.00. Grobler refused to return the deposit, arguing that Weilbach had changed his position in reliance on the payment and that it would be unfair to require Grobler to repay the money.

Weilbach then sued Grobler for the return of the deposit of R100 000.00.

Held:

The Court held that Weilbach was entitled to recover the deposit of R100 000.00 from Grobler. The Court reasoned that Weilbach had made the payment to Grobler under a mistake of fact and that he was therefore entitled to recover the payment, even though Grobler had changed his position in reliance on the payment.

Key Facts:

• A person entered into a contract with another person for the purchase of a farm.
• The contract provided that the person was to pay the other person a deposit upon the signing of the contract.
• The person paid the other person the deposit.
• However, the person subsequently discovered that the farm was subject to a servitude that gave another person the right to graze their cattle on the farm.
• The person was not aware of the servitude at the time he paid the other person the deposit.
• The person demanded that the other person return the deposit.
• The other person refused to return the deposit, arguing that the person had changed his position in reliance on the payment and that it would be unfair to require the other person to repay the money.
• The person sued the other person for the return of the deposit.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the person was entitled to recover the deposit from the other person because the person had made the payment to the other person under a mistake of fact and that he was therefore entitled to recover the payment, even though the other person had changed his position in reliance on the payment.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Weilbach v Grobler 1982 (2) SA 15 (O) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the rights of persons who have made payments to other persons under a mistake of fact.

Lechoana v Cloete and Others 1925 AD 536

Lechoana v Cloete and Others 1925 AD 536

Issue: Whether a person who has been enriched by the wrongful act of another person is liable to return the enrichment, even if the person who has been enriched was not aware of the wrongful act.

Facts:

Lechoana, a person, was the owner of a farm. Cloete and others, persons, trespassed on the farm and cut down trees. Cloete and others sold the trees and used the proceeds to build a house on their own farm.

Lechoana discovered that Cloete and others had cut down his trees and demanded that Cloete and others return the trees or pay for the value of the trees. Cloete and others argued that they were not liable to return the trees or pay for the value of the trees because they were not aware that they were trespassing on Lechoana's farm when they cut down the trees.

Lechoana then sued Cloete and others for the return of the trees or payment for the value of the trees.

Held:

The Court held that Cloete and others were liable to return the trees to Lechoana or pay for the value of the trees. The Court reasoned that Cloete and others had been enriched by the wrongful act of trespassing on Lechoana's farm and cutting down Lechoana's trees, and that Cloete and others were therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though they were not aware of the wrongful act.

Key Facts:

• Persons trespassed on another person's farm and cut down trees.
• The persons who cut down the trees sold the trees and used the proceeds to build a house on their own farm.
• The owner of the farm discovered that the persons had cut down his trees and demanded that the persons return the trees or pay for the value of the trees.
• The persons who cut down the trees argued that they were not liable to return the trees or pay for the value of the trees because they were not aware that they were trespassing on the owner of the farm's farm when they cut down the trees.
• The owner of the farm sued the persons who cut down the trees for the return of the trees or payment for the value of the trees.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the persons who cut down the trees were liable to return the trees to the owner of the farm or pay for the value of the trees because the persons who cut down the trees had been enriched by the wrongful act of trespassing on the owner of the farm's farm and cutting down the owner of the farm's trees, and that the persons who cut down the trees were therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though they were not aware of the wrongful act.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Lechoana v Cloete and Others 1925 AD 536 is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have been enriched by the wrongful act of another person.

Van Staden v Pretorius 1965 (1) SA 852 (T)

Van Staden v Pretorius 1965 (1) SA 852 (T)

Issue: Whether a person who has been enriched by the wrongful act of another person is liable to return the enrichment, even if the person who has been enriched was not aware of the wrongful act.

Facts:

Van Staden, a person, owned a farm. Pretorius, a person, trespassed on the farm and harvested and sold Van Staden's crops. Pretorius was not aware that he was trespassing on Van Staden's farm when he harvested the crops.

Van Staden discovered that Pretorius had harvested and sold his crops and demanded that Pretorius return the proceeds of the sale. Pretorius argued that he was not liable to return the proceeds of the sale because he was not aware that he was trespassing on Van Staden's farm when he harvested the crops.

Van Staden then sued Pretorius for the return of the proceeds of the sale.

Held:

The Court held that Pretorius was liable to return the proceeds of the sale to Van Staden. The Court reasoned that Pretorius had been enriched by the wrongful act of trespassing on Van Staden's farm and harvesting and selling Van Staden's crops, and that Pretorius was therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though he was not aware of the wrongful act.

Key Facts:

• A person trespassed on another person's farm and harvested and sold the other person's crops.
• The person who harvested the crops was not aware that he was trespassing on the other person's farm.
• The owner of the farm demanded that the person who harvested the crops return the proceeds of the sale.
• The person who harvested the crops argued that he was not liable to return the proceeds of the sale because he was not aware that he was trespassing on the other person's farm when he harvested the crops.
• The owner of the farm sued the person who harvested the crops for the return of the proceeds of the sale.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the person who harvested the crops was liable to return the proceeds of the sale to the owner of the farm because the person who harvested the crops had been enriched by the wrongful act of trespassing on the owner of the farm's farm and harvesting and selling the owner of the farm's crops, and that the person who harvested the crops was therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though he was not aware of the wrongful act.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Van Staden v Pretorius 1965 (1) SA 852 (T) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have been enriched by the wrongful act of another person.

Standard Bank Financial Services Ltd v Taylam (Pty) Ltd 1979 (2) SA 383 (C)

Standard Bank Financial Services Ltd v Taylam (Pty) Ltd 1979 (2) SA 383 (C)

Issue: Whether a bank that has paid out money on behalf of its client without authorisation is entitled to recover the money from the client, even if the client has changed their position in reliance on the payment.

Facts:

Standard Bank Financial Services Ltd (Standard Bank) was the banker of Taylam (Pty) Ltd (Taylam). Taylam entered into a contract with a building firm for the construction of a shopping centre. Standard Bank agreed to provide Taylam with a loan to finance the construction of the shopping centre.

Under the terms of the loan agreement, Standard Bank was required to make payments to the building firm on behalf of Taylam upon presentation of architect's certificates. The architect's certificates were to certify that the building firm had completed certain stages of the construction work and that Taylam was therefore liable to make payment to the building firm.

On 17 January 1975, Standard Bank received an architect's certificate that certified that Taylam was liable to pay the building firm R17 789,22. Standard Bank paid the R17 789,22 to the building firm on behalf of Taylam.

However, Taylam disputed the architect's certificate and refused to reimburse Standard Bank for the R17 789,22. Taylam argued that the architect's certificate was incorrect and that Taylam was not liable to pay the building firm the R17 789,22.

Standard Bank then sued Taylam for the recovery of the R17 789,22. Taylam argued that Standard Bank was not entitled to recover the money because Standard Bank had paid the money to the building firm without Taylam's authorisation. Taylam also argued that Taylam had changed its position in reliance on the payment, as Taylam had used the money to pay for other expenses related to the construction of the shopping centre.

Held:

The Court held that Standard Bank was entitled to recover the R17 789,22 from Taylam. The Court reasoned that Standard Bank had made the payment to the building firm without Taylam's authorisation and that Taylam was therefore not liable to reimburse Standard Bank for the payment. The court also found that Taylam had not changed its position in reliance on the payment in such a way as to make it unfair to require Taylam to repay the money.

Key Facts:

• A bank made a payment on behalf of its client without authorisation.
• The client disputed the payment and refused to reimburse the bank.
• The bank sued the client for the recovery of the money.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the bank was entitled to recover the money from the client because the bank had made the payment without the client's authorisation and the client was not liable to reimburse the bank for the payment.
• The court also found that the client had not changed its position in reliance on the payment in such a way as to make it unfair to require the client to repay the money.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Standard Bank Financial Services Ltd v Taylam (Pty) Ltd 1979 (2) SA 383 (C) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the rights of banks that have made payments on behalf of their clients without authorisation.

Shaw v Kirby 1924 GWL 33

Shaw v Kirby 1924 GWL 33

Issue: Whether a person who has been enriched by the wrongful act of another person is liable to return the enrichment, even if the person who has been enriched was not aware of the wrongful act.

Facts:

Shaw, a person, was the owner of a farm. Kirby, a person, entered into a lease agreement with Shaw to lease the farm. Kirby used the farm to graze his cattle.

Kirby was unaware that the farm was subject to a servitude that allowed a third party, Mr. Smith, to graze his cattle on the farm. Mr. Smith exercised his right to graze his cattle on the farm, which reduced the amount of grazing land available to Kirby's cattle.

Kirby suffered financial losses as a result of the reduction in grazing land available to his cattle. Kirby then sued Shaw for damages.

Held:

The Court held that Shaw was liable to pay Kirby damages. The Court reasoned that Shaw had been enriched by the wrongful act of leasing the farm to Kirby without informing Kirby of the servitude. The court also found that it was irrelevant that Shaw was not aware of the servitude.

Key Facts:

• A person leased a farm to another person.
• The farm was subject to a servitude that allowed a third party to graze their cattle on the farm.
• The person who leased the farm was unaware of the servitude.
• The third party exercised their right to graze their cattle on the farm, which reduced the amount of grazing land available to the person's cattle.
• The person who leased the farm suffered financial losses as a result of the reduction in grazing land available to their cattle.
• The person who leased the farm sued the owner of the farm for damages.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the owner of the farm was liable to pay the person who leased the farm damages because the owner of the farm had been enriched by the wrongful act of leasing the farm to the person without informing the person of the servitude.
• The court also found that it was irrelevant that the owner of the farm was not aware of the servitude.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Shaw v Kirby 1924 GWL 33 is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have been enriched by the wrongful act of another person.

Pretorius v Van Zyl 1927 OPD 226

Pretorius v Van Zyl 1927 OPD 226

Issue: Whether a person who has been enriched by the wrongful act of another person is liable to return the enrichment, even if the person who has been enriched was not aware of the wrongful act.

Facts:

Pretorius, a person, was the owner of a farm. Van Zyl, a person, trespassed on the farm and cut down trees. Van Zyl then sold the trees and used the proceeds to build a house on his own farm.

Pretorius discovered that Van Zyl had cut down the trees and demanded that Van Zyl return the trees or pay for the value of the trees. Van Zyl argued that he was not liable to return the trees or pay for the value of the trees because he was not aware that he was trespassing on Pretorius's farm when he cut down the trees.

Pretorius then sued Van Zyl for the return of the trees or payment for the value of the trees.

Held:

The Court held that Van Zyl was liable to return the trees to Pretorius or pay for the value of the trees. The Court reasoned that Van Zyl had been enriched by the wrongful act of trespassing on Pretorius's farm and cutting down the trees, and that Van Zyl was therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though he was not aware of the wrongful act.

Key Facts:

• A person trespassed on another person's farm and cut down trees.
• The person sold the trees and used the proceeds to build a house on their own farm.
• The owner of the farm discovered that the trees had been cut down and demanded that the person return the trees or pay for the value of the trees.
• The person argued that they were not liable to return the trees or pay for the value of the trees because they were not aware that they were trespassing on the farm when they cut down the trees.
• The owner of the farm sued the person for the return of the trees or payment for the value of the trees.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the person was liable to return the trees to the owner of the farm or pay for the value of the trees. The Court reasoned that the person had been enriched by the wrongful act of trespassing on the farm and cutting down the trees, and that the person was therefore liable to return the enrichment, even though they were not aware of the wrongful act.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Pretorius v Van Zyl 1927 OPD 226 is a significant case in South African law.The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the liability of persons who have been enriched by the wrongful act of another person.

Nortje en ’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A)

Nortje en ’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A)

Issue: Whether South African law recognizes a general enrichment action.

Facts:

Nortje and another person (the appellants) paid a sum of money to Pool NO, the respondent, under the mistaken belief that they were legally obliged to do so. The appellants later discovered that they were not legally obliged to pay the money and demanded that Pool NO return the money. Pool NO refused to return the money, arguing that he had changed his position in reliance on the receipt of the money.

The appellants then sued Pool NO for the return of the money. The appellants argued that they were entitled to recover the money under a general enrichment action. Pool NO argued that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action.

Held:

The majority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action. The majority reasoned that there are a number of specific enrichment actions in South African law, such as the condictio indebiti (the action to recover money paid under a mistake of fact) and the condictio sine causa (the action to recover money paid without cause), and that these specific enrichment actions are sufficient to protect the interests of persons who have been enriched at the expense of another person.

However, the majority also held that the courts may develop new enrichment actions in the future if it is necessary to do so in order to achieve justice.

The minority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does recognize a general enrichment action. The minority reasoned that there is a principle of unjust enrichment in South African law and that this principle gives rise to a general enrichment action.

Key Facts:

• The appellants paid money to the respondent under the mistaken belief that they were legally obliged to do so.
• The appellants later discovered that they were not legally obliged to pay the money and demanded that the respondent return the money.
• The respondent refused to return the money, arguing that he had changed his position in reliance on the receipt of the money.
• The appellants sued the respondent for the return of the money, arguing that they were entitled to recover the money under a general enrichment action.
• The respondent argued that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action.

Reasons:

• The majority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action. The majority reasoned that there are a number of specific enrichment actions in South African law, such as the condictio indebiti and the condictio sine causa, and that these specific enrichment actions are sufficient to protect the interests of persons who have been enriched at the expense of another person.
• However, the majority also held that the courts may develop new enrichment actions in the future if it is necessary to do so in order to achieve justice.
• The minority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does recognize a general enrichment action. The minority reasoned that there is a principle of unjust enrichment in South African law and that this principle gives rise to a general enrichment action.

Conclusion:

The majority decision in Nortje en ’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) is still the law in South Africa today. However, the minority decision has been influential and has been cited in a number of subsequent cases. It is possible that the courts may recognize a general enrichment action in the future, but this has not yet happened.