Gold Driven Investments (Private) Limited v David Tendayi Matipano N.O

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Did the applicant state a valid cause of action against the respondent?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant alleged unjust enrichment from payment under repealed law"}
• {"issue_text":"Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies before approaching court?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Respondent argued sheriff should determine fee disputes under r 457(3)"}
• {"issue_text":"Under which statutory instrument was the respondent entitled to charge commission?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Commission charged under repealed SI 35/2009 instead of current SI 57/2011"}
• {"issue_text":"Is the applicant entitled to refund of excess commission paid?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Payment made under repealed regulations"}

Background