IRM1501
Assignment 2
Semester 2
Unique No: 860058
DUE 19 September 2025
, Assignment 2
Unique Number: 860058
Case Summary: Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouché
(SCA Case No. 71/2019, [2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (18 March 2020))
1. Facts
In November 2015, Mr Nickolaus Ludick Fouché, a mining consultant, entered into a
written mandate with Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd (“Global”),
authorising the company to invest funds with Investec Bank through a Corporate Cash
Manager (CCM) account. The mandate contained an express clause stipulating that all
instructions must be sent by fax or by email, accompanied by the client’s signature. The
requirement of a signature was aimed at providing security, authentication, and
protection against fraudulent instructions.^1
In August 2016, Mr Fouché’s Gmail account was unlawfully accessed by fraudsters.
Using his email address, they sent three fraudulent emails on 15, 18 and 24 August
2016 to Global. These emails instructed Global to transfer large sums of money from Mr
Fouché’s investment account into third-party accounts at First National Bank. The
emails concluded with informal sign-offs such as “Thanks, Nick” or “Regards, Nick,” but
crucially contained no attached scanned signature or any signature in the sense
required by the mandate.^2
Relying on these emails, Global proceeded to transfer a total of R804 000 from Mr
Fouché’s account R100 000 on 15 August, R375 000 on 18 August, and R329 000 on
24 August into accounts belonging to unknown third parties. When Mr Fouché
discovered the transactions, he denied authorising them and demanded repayment. He
argued that Global had acted in breach of the mandate, since the instructions lacked his
required signature.
Global, however, refused to refund him, contending that the emails were received from
Mr Fouché’s legitimate Gmail account and that the typed sign-off “Nick” qualified as an
Assignment 2
Semester 2
Unique No: 860058
DUE 19 September 2025
, Assignment 2
Unique Number: 860058
Case Summary: Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouché
(SCA Case No. 71/2019, [2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (18 March 2020))
1. Facts
In November 2015, Mr Nickolaus Ludick Fouché, a mining consultant, entered into a
written mandate with Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd (“Global”),
authorising the company to invest funds with Investec Bank through a Corporate Cash
Manager (CCM) account. The mandate contained an express clause stipulating that all
instructions must be sent by fax or by email, accompanied by the client’s signature. The
requirement of a signature was aimed at providing security, authentication, and
protection against fraudulent instructions.^1
In August 2016, Mr Fouché’s Gmail account was unlawfully accessed by fraudsters.
Using his email address, they sent three fraudulent emails on 15, 18 and 24 August
2016 to Global. These emails instructed Global to transfer large sums of money from Mr
Fouché’s investment account into third-party accounts at First National Bank. The
emails concluded with informal sign-offs such as “Thanks, Nick” or “Regards, Nick,” but
crucially contained no attached scanned signature or any signature in the sense
required by the mandate.^2
Relying on these emails, Global proceeded to transfer a total of R804 000 from Mr
Fouché’s account R100 000 on 15 August, R375 000 on 18 August, and R329 000 on
24 August into accounts belonging to unknown third parties. When Mr Fouché
discovered the transactions, he denied authorising them and demanded repayment. He
argued that Global had acted in breach of the mandate, since the instructions lacked his
required signature.
Global, however, refused to refund him, contending that the emails were received from
Mr Fouché’s legitimate Gmail account and that the typed sign-off “Nick” qualified as an
