SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 379520/2016
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
(3) REVISED: Yes
Date: 15 September 2025
In the matter between:
SASABONA MANGANYE Applicant
and
NATIONAL EDUCATION, HEALTH
AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION
First Respondent
BRANCH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
NEHAWU JOHANNESBURG
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS J
Introduction
[1] In this opposed application the applicant seeks payment of R100 000 plus
interest and costs from the respondent s. This arises from a settlement agreement
the parties signed, settling a defamation claim. The applicants state that the first
R100 000 was paid into the wrong account, and that the amount is thus still
outstanding. The respondents indicate that the amount of R100 000 was transferred
to a bank account, the details of which were supplied by the applicant as part of the
settlement agreement.
2
[2] The agreement was exchanged by email. The correspondence began on 13
July 2021 when the applicant’s attorneys ( i[…]), copying Mr Christopher
Mamathuntsha (“Mr Mamathunstha”), sent a draft agreement to the respondents’
representative, Mr Malose Phoko, at his official union address (m […]). This version
reflected the applicant’s correct trust account but the wrong amount of R350 000. Up
to this point the sequence is common cause.
[3] What followed thereafter is contested. The applicant maintains that later the
same day a corrected version was sent, showing the proper settlement amount of
R300 000 and still reflecting its correct account details. On the applicant’s version,
his attorney, Mr Mamathuntsha signed this agreement on behalf of him on 13 July
and transmitted it by email. The document in the record bears his signature and the
date of 13 July 2021.
[4] The respondents, however, rely on different correspondence. They contend
that subsequent emails altered not only the amount but also the account number.
They say that on 14 July 2021 the applicant sent a PDF version of the settlement
agreement, digitally signed, which contained an account that we now know was the
incorrect account number . Acting on this, they returned the agreement on 16 July
2021 and thereafter made payment of the first instalment into that account.
[5] The bottom line is that two competing agreements appear in the record: one,
signed and dated 13 July 2021, reflecting the agreed amount and the applicant’s
trust account; the other, digitally signed, also dated 13 July but bearing a different
account number. The respondents acted on the latter. The applicant alleges it was
tampered with. The difficulty is compounded by two different addresses for Mr
Phoko: the official m[…] and another address m[…].
[6] In correspondence of 29 November 2021 the applicant expressly denied ever
furnishing the wrong account details and denied that the signature appearing on that
furnishing the wrong account details and denied that the signature appearing on that
version was its client’s signature. It described the document returned by the
respondents as “tampered with”. That denial has not been convincingly refuted by
the respondent.
3
[7] The presence of a look-alike “@mail.com” address and the disputed electronic
signature raise a real probability of fraud or interception. This places the case within
the ambit of authorities dealing with business email compromise and
misappropriated payments.
1
[8] In Galactic Auto (Pty) Ltd v Venter
2 the Court held that the debtor bore the risk
of such interception, and payment into the wrong account did not discharge the debt.
In Mosselbaai Boeredienste (Pty) Ltd v OKB Motors CC 3 the respondent paid
monies into an account where the details were specified on an invoice. However, it
seemed as if the email instructions received by the respondent was sent
fraudulently. The court held that the creditor need not suffer loss caused by a
debtor’s failure to verify the details. In Gripper & Co (Pty) Ltd v Ganedhi Trading
Enterprises CC 4 the debtor paid funds into a fraudster’s account after receiving a
spoofed email changing the creditor’s banking details. In that case, the court held
that the duty was on the debtor to verify the details before paying, and that payment
into the wrong account does not discharge the debt.
[9] All these cases establish that where payment is intercepted or
misappropriated by a fraudster, the risk lies with the debtor. It is the debtor’s duty to
ensure that payment reaches the creditor. Until the creditor actually receives value,
the obligations in terms of the agreement are not discharged.
In this case, the R100 000 was paid into an account which the applicant denies
having provided to the respondents and which appears in a version of the settlement
agreement with a disputed signature. On the probabilities this is not a case where
the applicant itself furnished incorrect details, but one where correspondence was
tampered with or intercepted. In line with the authorities set out above, payment into
such an account does not discharge the debtor’s obligation. The respondents had a
such an account does not discharge the debtor’s obligation. The respondents had a
duty to verify the account details before making payment . Because they did not do
1 See also Njabulo Kubheka “E-mail fraud and payment verification: How have the courts adapted to the
challenges posed by cybercrime?” 1 June 2025 De Rebus.
2 [2019] ZALMPPHC 27.
3 2024 (6) SA 564 (FB).
4 2025 (3) SA 279 (WCC).
4
so, they remain liable for the first instalment of R100 000, together with interests and
costs.
The state of the CaseLines file
[10] Before concluding, I noted my displeasure with the state of the CaseLines
record on the day of the hearing. Different files, case numbers and party descriptions
caused unnecessary confusion, compounded by last -minute uploads on the morning
of the hearing. One of the documents uploaded on the day of the hearing at the last
minute, was the notice for substitution of the applicant dated 19 July 2022. The
applicants informed the court that the matter was set down by the respondents,
which presumably means that they had to ensure that the file was in order.
[11] The disorderly state of the file made preparation unnecessarily difficult and fell
short of compliance with the practice directives. Parties are reminded that proper
management of the electronic file is essential to the administration of justice. The
only reason I did not strike the matter from the roll was that I did not wish a colleague
to be burdened with a case to which I had already applied my mind. Practitioners are
cautioned that, should this occur again, an adverse cost order may be made.
Order
[12] The following order is made:
1. The first and second respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, the one
paying the other to be absolved, to pay the applicant the sum of R100 000.00
(one hundred thousand rand).
2. The respondents are ordered to pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the
rate of 10.25% per annum, calculated from 13 July 2021 (the date of signature
of the settlement agreement) to date of final payment.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of suit on the party -
and-party scale B.
____________________________
WJ du Plessis
Judge of the High Court
5
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
Date of hearing:
6 August 2025
Date of judgment:
15 September 2025
For the applicant:
N Makhani instructed by Mamathunthsa
Inc.
For the respondent:
W Roos instructed by Velile Tinto &
Associates Inc