Manganye v National Education Health and Allied Workers Union and Another (379520/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 992 (15 September 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 992 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Manganye v National Education Health and Allied Workers Union and Another (379520/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 992 (15 September 2025) Manganye v National Education Health and Allied Workers Union and Another (379520/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 992 (15 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_992.html sino date 15 September 2025 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 Introduction [1]  In this opposed application the applicant seeks payment of R100 000 plus interest and costs from the respondents. 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]  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 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. [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 duty to verify the account details before making payment. Because they did not do so, they remain liable for the first instalment of R100 000, together with interests and costs. # The state of the CaseLines file 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 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 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 [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). sino noindex make_database footer start