Pitso and Others v Chabeli Molatoli Attorneys Incorporated

The deceased died intestate in November 2021. His widow, Mrs Polo Susan Pitso, was appointed executrix of his estate. Prior to her formal appointment, she concluded a written mandate and fee agreement with the respondent firm of attorneys to administer the estate at a fee of 3.5% of the estate value. After receiving an interim invoice which she considered excessive, Mrs Pitso questioned the fees and alleged she was not in a proper state of mind when signing the agreement. In April 2022 she terminated the respondent’s mandate and appointed another firm of attorneys. The respondent launched an urgent application in the High Court seeking to have the termination declared invalid, to interdict Mrs Pitso from terminating the mandate without leave of court, to prevent the Master from recognising the new attorneys, and to remove Mrs Pitso as executrix. The High Court declared the termination unlawful. Mrs Pitso and others appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court order was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application with costs. The respondent’s cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case reaffirms an important principle of South African agency law: that a mandate is generally terminable at the will of the principal and that courts will not compel the continuation of an attorney-client relationship. It underscores that an attorney’s remedy for premature or wrongful termination lies in a claim for damages, not coercive interdictory relief, and reinforces the strict requirements for final interdicts.