ConCourt sets aside SCA order

2014-10-02 14:28
The Constitutional Court (Picture: Sapa)

The Constitutional Court (Picture: Sapa)

Multimedia   ·   User Galleries   ·   News in Pictures Send us your pictures  ·  Send us your stories

Johannesburg - The Constitutional Court on Thursday set aside an order of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) that held attorneys liable in a lawsuit involving the purchase of a property.

Yuen Fan Lau and Shun Cheng Liang initially tried to purchase immovable property from Royal Anthem Investments. Attorneys from Stopforth Swanepoel & Brewis Incorporated acted as conveyancers for the transaction.

Lau and Liang later sued Royal and the attorneys to recover funds they had paid to Royal for the sale and transfer, but which remained held in trust by the attorneys.

The two subsequently withdrew the action against the attorneys and proceeded against Royal only. The high court ordered Royal to repay the funds plus interest.

Royal then appealed to the SCA.

Although the attorneys were not cited as a party on appeal, the SCA amended the high court order, and ordered the attorneys to repay the funds plus interest.

The interest was calculated at a rate higher than that which applied to the interest-bearing trust account holding the funds.

After the attorneys failed to have the SCA reconsider the order, they appealed to the Constitutional Court.

The attorneys contended that because the SCA granted the order in proceedings to which they were not a party, their right to access to courts under section 34 of the Constitution had been violated.

They also maintained that they were prejudiced by the excess interest the order required them to pay.

The Constitutional Court held that the dispute before the SCA did not extend to the attorneys' liability.

It was undisputed that the attorneys kept the funds in trust on Royal’s instructions. However, the attorneys were not party to the appeal and did not have an opportunity to place evidence before the SCA.

The Constitutional Court held that the order of the SCA violated the notions of procedural and substantive fairness.

Based on the attorneys’ undertaking that they were in the process of releasing the funds to Lau and Liang, the Constitutional Court concluded that Royal - rather than the attorneys - must pay the excess interest.

Read more on:    concourt  |  sca  |  johannesburg

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.
NEXT ON NEWS24X publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.