The appellant conducted a factoring business where it purchased and took cession of claims that its clients (suppliers) had against their customers for goods sold on credit. Black Ginger 81 (Pty) Ltd entered into a factoring agreement with the appellant on 15 May 2006. Katana Foods CC, a customer of Black Ginger, applied to open an account. The appellant performed a credit check and agreed to factor invoices up to R750,000. Mr David Rahman, a director and buying officer of Katana, participated in a fraudulent scheme with Mr Nurasiaha, manager of Black Ginger. Between June 2006 and May 2007, Mr Rahman falsely verified 13 occasions that goods reflected on Black Ginger invoices had been sold and delivered to Katana when in fact these sales were entirely fictitious. The appellant factored these invoices and made payments exceeding R3 million to Black Ginger. Black Ginger subsequently repaid the appellant in respect of all but the last three invoices (numbers 105156, 105551, and 105332). The fraud unraveled in June 2007 when a cheque from Black Ginger (rather than Katana) was returned unpaid. The total loss on the three unpaid invoices was R404,557.26. Crucially, in respect of these three final invoices, the appellant made payments to Black Ginger before Mr Rahman verified the sales, though he did subsequently (falsely) verify them.
1. The appeal succeeds, with costs. 2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: (a) The appeal succeeds with costs; (b) The order of absolution granted by the trial court is set aside and substituted with: (i) The defendant (Katana Foods CC) is to pay the plaintiff (Merchant Commercial Finance) the amount of R404,557.26 together with interest thereon a tempore morae to date of payment; (ii) The defendant is further to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit.
In a fraudulent scheme involving a series of transactions, previous fraudulent misrepresentations can constitute factual causation of loss suffered in later transactions, even where the immediate verification of those transactions occurred after payment was made. The 'but-for' test for factual causation is satisfied where the prior fraudulent conduct created a course of dealing that lulled the victim into accepting the bona fides of subsequent transactions - had the earlier fraudulent representations not been made, the scheme would have collapsed and the later losses would not have occurred. It is artificial and incorrect to quarantine later transactions from earlier fraudulent conduct when they form part of a continuous scheme. Legal causation (remoteness) is established where the damage was clearly foreseeable and a direct consequence of the fraudulent scheme designed to induce the victim's reliance. The enquiry into factual causation is distinct from legal causation and these must not be conflated.
The court made observations about the nature of factoring, noting that while factors are traditionally agents who sell or dispose of goods entrusted to them, the appellant's business model was 'somewhat different' as it essentially purchased and took cession of debts rather than acting as a traditional factor. Leach JA described the appellant as carrying on business 'probably somewhat inaccurately' described as factoring. The court also noted that in applying the 'but-for' test, it is not a question of deciding upon 'formulaic quantifications and percentages' but rather requires 'a sensible retrospective analysis of what would probably have occurred, based upon the evidence and what can be expected to occur in the ordinary course of human affairs rather than an exercise in metaphysics.' The court observed that the fact that Black Ginger's representatives also participated in the fraud and were themselves guilty of fraud does not exculpate Mr Rahman or the respondent from liability.
This judgment is significant for South African law on delictual liability, particularly regarding causation in fraud cases. It establishes important principles about how courts should approach causation where fraudulent conduct occurs over a series of transactions rather than as isolated incidents. The case clarifies that previous fraudulent representations can establish factual causation for subsequent losses, even where the immediate proximate act (verification) occurred after the payment that caused loss. The judgment emphasizes the application of common sense in assessing causation and warns against artificial compartmentalization of conduct that forms part of an ongoing fraudulent scheme. It is also relevant to the law of factoring and the duties and liabilities arising in such commercial arrangements. The case demonstrates the practical application of both the 'but-for' test for factual causation and policy-based considerations for legal causation, and the importance of not conflating these two distinct inquiries.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate