Investgold CC v Uys and Another

Investgold CC sold gold coins to Dirk Uys and Mariesa Troskie in two cash transactions during January 2011. The full purchase price was paid, and on 26 January 2011 the coins were physically delivered to Uys at Investgold’s premises after verification and signing of delivery documentation. After taking possession, Uys was persuaded by Investgold’s broker, Hugo, to store the coins in what he believed was Investgold’s vault, but which was in fact operated by Knox Titanium Vault Company. Hugo had earlier fraudulently arranged access to the vault and later stole the coins. Uys and Troskie sued Investgold for specific performance, alleging that ownership had not passed and that Investgold remained liable for delivery.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with costs.

The case clarifies South African law on transfer of ownership in cash sales of movable property, particularly the role of intention and delivery where an employee later commits theft. It confirms that subsequent dishonest conduct by an agent does not negate an otherwise valid transfer of ownership and limits the attribution of an agent’s criminal intention to a corporate seller.