Mosselbaai Boeredienste (Pty) Ltd t/a Mosselbaai Toyota v OKB Motors CC t/a Bultfontein Toyota

The parties, both motor vehicle dealers, concluded an interdealership agreement on 7 February 2018 in terms of which the respondent purchased a Toyota Etios from the applicant for resale. An invoice emailed by the applicant was intercepted by an unknown third party who altered the applicant’s bank details. The respondent paid the purchase price of R159 353.76 into the fraudulent account. A subsequent proof of payment email was also intercepted and altered, causing the applicant to believe payment had been correctly made, and the vehicle was released. When the applicant did not receive the funds, it sued in the magistrates’ court. The respondent raised a special plea of estoppel, which succeeded, and the applicant’s claim was dismissed. The applicant noted an appeal to the High Court but failed to comply with Uniform Rules 50(4)(a), 50(7)(a) and 7(2), causing the appeal to lapse. An application for condonation and reinstatement was dismissed by the High Court, leading to an application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Special leave to appeal was granted. The appeal against the refusal of condonation was upheld with costs. The High Court’s order dismissing the condonation application was set aside and replaced with an order granting condonation and reinstating the appeal. The matter was referred to the full court of the Free State Division of the High Court to determine the merits of the appeal.

The judgment is significant for reaffirming that strong prospects of success may trump an unsatisfactory explanation for procedural non-compliance in condonation applications. It also highlights the developing and unsettled area of South African law concerning liability for losses caused by cybercrime and the interception of electronic banking details, noting conflicting High Court decisions and the need for authoritative guidance.