Van Rooyen v Rorich Wolmarans & Lüderitz Ing

The appellant, acting as curator of the insolvent estate of Johannes Jacobus Smith, sued the respondent firm of attorneys for payment of R809 806. The claim arose from two property transactions in which the respondent acted as conveyancer for the sale of immovable property from the insolvent estate. The appellant alleged that the respondent was mandated to transfer the properties and to account to the curators for the proceeds, but negligently failed to ensure that the proceeds were paid into the insolvent estate. Instead, the respondent paid the proceeds to De Mist Trust Corporate Services (Pty) Ltd, a company involved in administering the estate, which was later liquidated, rendering the funds irrecoverable. The respondent contended that, as part of the mandate given by one of the curators (Lüderitz), it was authorised to pay the proceeds to De Mist as the duly authorised representative of the estate. The High Court dismissed the claim, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case confirms principles relating to the proof of the terms of a mandate and the allocation of the onus of proof in contractual disputes. It is significant in insolvency practice and conveyancing law, illustrating how established practice and implied or tacit terms may form part of a mandate, and emphasising appellate deference to trial court findings on factual disputes and credibility.