Intengo Imoto (Pty) Ltd t/a Northcliff Nissan v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers CC t/a Hyundai Louis Trichardt

Intengo Imoto (Pty) Ltd sold two Nissan NP200 vehicles to Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers CC (Hyundai) for R145 000 each. The parties agreed that payment would be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT) into Intengo’s bank account, the details of which were reflected on invoices emailed to Hyundai. Due to fraudulent interception and substitution of banking details, Hyundai paid the purchase price into a different, fraudulent bank account. Intengo never received the funds but released the vehicles after receiving proofs of payment. When Intengo discovered the non-payment, it demanded payment. Hyundai contended that it had paid and that the risk of email and EFT fraud lay with Intengo.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the high court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Hyundai’s appeal with costs, thereby reinstating the regional court’s order requiring Hyundai to pay the purchase price, mora interest, and costs.

This judgment affirms and consolidates South African jurisprudence on EFT and email fraud, confirming that the risk of misdirected payment lies with the debtor unless the creditor authorised the account. It reinforces that payment by EFT is only effective upon receipt into the creditor’s account and clarifies the allocation of the onus of proof in contractual payment disputes in the context of cybercrime.