Bannister's Print (Pty) Ltd (Print), controlled by Sonny Bannister, instituted action against D & A Calendars CC (Calendars) and Darryl Bannister (Sonny's son) in April 2011 for payment of certain amounts. Calendars counterclaimed. Darryl consulted Ian Levitt Attorneys, who assigned the matter to Marc Lieberthal, an unadmitted attorney who had completed articles but whose previous employer had refused to sign a certificate of good conduct. In February 2013, Lieberthal sent Darryl a draft settlement agreement, claiming it came from Print's attorney. Darryl amended the draft by deleting provisions that would have left him liable, initialed and signed it, and faxed it back. Lieberthal forged Darryl's initials on an unamended version, attaching Darryl's signed last page, and submitted this forged document to court. The court made the purported settlement agreement an order of court. When the sheriff arrived to execute the order in May 2013, Darryl discovered the forgery. Calendars and Darryl applied to have the agreement declared void ab initio.
The appeal was dismissed with costs of two counsel.
A forged settlement agreement cannot bind a party on the basis of estoppel or agency by estoppel, even where that party appointed the forger as their legal representative. The principle that a party may be estopped from denying their lawyer's authority applies only where the lawyer concludes an actual agreement by exceeding mandate or acting against instructions, not where the lawyer fabricates a completely false document. There can be no consensus ad idem where one party's purported agreement is entirely forged and bears no resemblance to what they intended to agree to. The 'aura of authority' principle from Kruizenga does not extend to cover forgeries - it applies where conduct clothes an attorney with apparent authority to conclude actual agreements, not fabricated ones.
The Court clarified that the statements by the courts below that 'fraud unravels all' cannot be taken at face value. Citing Absa Bank Ltd v Moore 2017 (1) SA 255 (CC), Lewis JA noted that the maxim is not absolute - fraud unravels all directly within its compass, but only between victim and perpetrator, at the instance of the victim. Whether fraud unravels a contract depends on the victim, not the fraudster or third parties. The Court also observed that if Print suffered any loss at Lieberthal's hands, it has other remedies at its disposal (presumably against the attorney or law firm). The Court indicated that the question of whether Ian Levitt or his firm bore responsibility for the fiasco was not before the Court and did not need to be determined, though a claim against the firm was contemplated.
This judgment clarifies important principles regarding the enforceability of settlement agreements in South African law. It distinguishes between situations where an attorney exceeds their mandate (where estoppel may apply) and outright forgery (where no binding agreement exists). The case limits the application of the 'aura of authority' principle established in Kruizenga to situations where actual agreements exist, not forged documents. It also provides authoritative guidance on the proper scope of the maxim 'fraud unravels all', clarifying that it operates only between victim and perpetrator and is not an absolute principle affecting all related transactions. The judgment protects parties from being bound by completely fabricated agreements that bear no resemblance to their intentions, even where they have appointed the forger as their legal representative.