Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Sca2024 94

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Hanekom

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sca2024 94

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Hanekom
    6 views8 pages

    Original Title

    SCA2024-94

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    6 views8 pages

    Sca2024 94

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Hanekom

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8

    THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

    JUDGMENT

    Not Reportable
    Case no: 420/2023

    In the matter between:


    POLO SUSAN PITSO NO FIRST APPELLANT
    POLO SUSAN PITSO SECOND APPELLANT
    LIPALESA PITSO THIRD APPELLANT
    TLOTLISO PITSO FOURTH APPELLANT
    MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA FIFTH APPELLANT
    SELEKA ATTORNEYS SIXTH APPELLANT
    and
    CHABELI MOLATOLI ATTORNEYS
    INCORPORATED RESPONDENT

    Neutral citation: Pitso and Others v Chabeli Molatoli Attorneys Incorporated


    (Case no 420/2023) [2024] ZASCA 94 (12 June 2024)
    Coram: SCHIPPERS, MOKGOHLOA and MABINDLA-
    BOQWANA JJA and DAWOOD and SEEGOBIN AJJA
    Heard: This appeal was, by consent of the parties, disposed of without
    an oral hearing in terms of s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act
    10 of 2013.
    Delivered: The judgment was handed down electronically by circulation
    to the parties’ representatives by email, publication on the
    2

    Supreme Court of Appeal website and release to SAFLII. The


    date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 12 June 2024 at
    11h00.
    Summary: Agency and representation – at common law a mandate is in general
    terminable at the will of the principal – requirements of final interdict not met.
    3

    __ ___ ___

    ORDER
    __ ___

    On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Ndlokovane


    AJ, sitting as court of first instance):
    1 The appeal is upheld with costs.
    2 The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following:
    ‘The application is dismissed with costs.’
    3 The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.

    __ ___ ___

    JUDGMENT
    __ ___
    Mokgohloa JA (Schippers and Mabindla-Boqwana JJA and Dawood and
    Seegobin AJJA concurring):

    [1] The central issue in this appeal is whether the first appellant, Mrs Polo
    Susan Pitso (Mrs Pitso), the widow and executrix in the estate of the late Mr
    Likano John Pitso (the deceased), was entitled to terminate the mandate of the
    respondent, a firm of attorneys, Chabeli Molatoli Attorneys Incorporated, who
    was responsible for the administration of the deceased’s estate. The appeal is with
    leave of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the high court).

    [2] The high court also granted the respondent leave to cross-appeal to this
    Court, despite making no adverse order against it. This error is compounded by
    the respondent’s notice of appeal, in terms of which it seeks an order, inter alia,
    that the cross-appeal be upheld and that the ‘termination of the applicant’s
    4

    mandate by the second respondent is declared unlawful’. That is the order on


    appeal before us. It follows that the cross-appeal is fatally defective.

    [3] Prior to the hearing of this appeal, the parties requested that it be disposed
    of without hearing oral argument in terms of s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act
    10 of 2013. This Court granted that request.

    [4] The issue must be considered against the following factual background. Mr
    Chabedi Molatoli (Mr Molatoli) is an attorney and the director of the respondent.
    The Molatoli and the deceased’s family became close friends when the latter
    moved into the same residential estate where Mr Molatoli lives. Mr Molatoli gave
    legal advice to the deceased and assisted him in matters which involved the
    deceased and members of his family.

    [5] The deceased died intestate on 15 November 2021. Mr Molatoli assisted


    Mrs Pitso to report the estate to the fifth appellant, the Master of the High Court,
    Pretoria (the Master). On 18 November 2021, the respondent and Mrs Pitso
    concluded a written mandate and fee agreement (the agreement), in terms of
    which Mrs Pitso agreed to appoint the respondent as her agent should she be
    appointed as executrix of the deceased’s estate (the estate). In terms of the
    agreement the respondent would be responsible for the administration of the
    estate and the drafting of the liquidation and distribution account, and would be
    entitled to charge a fee of 3.5% of the estate. The agreement reads:
    ‘Should this mandate be terminated without any valid reason by the executrix which warrants
    such termination, [the] full agent fee shall be payable to Chabedi Molatoli Attorneys Inc. within
    seven (7) working days. Any legal costs shall be payable on [an] attorney and client scale by
    [the] defaulting party.’
    On 30 December 2021, the Master issued a letter of executorship appointing Mrs
    Pitso as the executrix in the estate of the deceased.
    5

    [6] On 1 April 2022, the respondent sent an interim invoice for services
    rendered to Mrs Pitso. She replied in an email sent on 3 April 2022 in which she
    stated that the respondent’s first interim invoice was for more than 60% of the
    total funds available to finance the debts against the estate. She requested the
    respondent to provide a schedule of ‘the amounts to be claimed pertaining to the
    entire process until closure of the estate account’. She also stated that, when she
    signed the agreement she was not in her right state of mind, and would not have
    done so had she known that the respondent would claim payment of the amounts
    stated in the invoice.

    [7] The respondent claimed to have replied to Mrs Pitso’s email of 3 April
    2022 through a letter explaining how the agreement had been entered into.
    However, that letter was not annexed to the founding affidavit. Nothing however
    turns on this.

    [8] On 28 April 2022, Mrs Pitso signed a document titled ‘TERMINATION


    OF MANDATE’, in terms of which she terminated the respondent’s mandate and
    appointed Seleka Attorneys Incorporated (Seleka Attorneys), the sixth appellant,
    to administer the estate. On the same day, Seleka Attorneys sent the termination
    of mandate to the respondent. They informed the respondent that they would
    approach the Master to request that they be substituted in the place of the
    respondent. They requested the respondent to furnish them with its final account
    and enquired as to when Mrs Pitso’s file could be collected.

    [9] On 10 May 2022, the respondent launched an urgent application in the high
    court seeking an order:
    (a) declaring the termination of its mandate invalid;
    6

    (b) that Mrs Pitso ‘be interdicted from terminating the [respondent’s] mandate,
    unless with the leave of the court on reasonable grounds’;
    (c) that the Master ‘be ordered not to recognize the purported termination and
    appointment of Seleka Attorneys as agents of [Mrs Pitso]’; and
    (c) that Mrs Pitso be removed as executrix of the estate and she be ordered to
    return the letters of executorship to the Master.

    [10] The application came before Makhoba J, who struck it from the roll for
    lack of urgency. It subsequently came before Ndlokovane AJ. Despite referring
    to this Court’s decision in Liberty Life Group Ltd and Others v Mall Space
    Management CC t/a Mall Space Management (Liberty Group),1 in which it was
    held that it is against public policy to force the principal to retain an agent against
    her will, the court made an order declaring the termination of the respondent’s
    mandate unlawful. The court ordered the first to the fourth appellants to pay the
    respondent’s costs.

    [11] The application was misconceived. An applicant for a final interdict must
    show a clear right; an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; and
    the absence of similar protection by any other remedy. 2 The respondent simply
    failed to make out a case for the relief sought. It did not establish the requisites
    for the grant of a final interdict, more specifically a clear right and the absence of
    an adequate alternative remedy. A final interdict is extraordinary robust relief. It
    is therefore important that the applicant establish all the requisites for such an
    interdict.

    1
    Liberty Life Group Ltd and Others v Mall Space Management CC t/a Mall Space Management [2019] ZASCA
    142; 2020 (1) SA 30 (SCA).
    2
    Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 at 227; Olympic Passenger Services (Pty) Ltd v Ramlagan 1957 (2) 382 (D).
    7

    [12] It is trite that a principal is entitled to revoke a mandate of agency in these


    circumstances. As this Court stated in Liberty Group:3
    ‘It would be against public policy, to coerce a principal into retaining an individual as his agent,
    when he no longer wishes to retain him as such. If the termination of the mandate has prejudiced
    the agent his remedy lies in a claim for damages and not in an order compelling the principal
    to retain him as his agent in the future.’

    [13] The respondent is not without a remedy. If Mrs Pitso’s termination of the
    mandate prejudiced the respondent, its remedy lies in a claim for damages. After
    all, its claim is nothing more than one for payment of its fees. One can just
    imagine the chaos that would result if every attorney whose mandate is terminated
    were to approach court for an order that his or her services be retained.

    [14] The high court did not make an order for the removal of Mrs Pitso as an
    executrix of the estate. In any event, the allegations in the founding affidavit that
    Mrs Pitso ‘acted in her own interest and not in the interests of the creditors of the
    estate’ is not supported by any facts. No more need be said about this relief.

    [15] For the above reasons, I make the following order:


    1 The appeal is upheld with costs.
    2 The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following:
    ‘The application is dismissed with costs.’
    3 The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.

    _______________________
    F E MOKGOHLOA
    JUDGE OF APPEAL

    3
    Op cit fn 1 para 36.
    8

    Written submissions:

    For the appellants: RM Mahlatsi with O Tommy


    Instructed by: Ketwa Incorporated, Pretoria
    Wesi Attorneys, Bloemfontein

    For the respondent: C Molatoli


    Instructed by: Nwandzule Attorneys Inc
    Cooper Attorneys, Bloemfontein

    You might also like