In the matter between
HERMANUS DEMPERS PRETORIUS NO 1 ST APPELLANT
SUSAN ANN PRETORIUS NO 2 ND APPELLANT
EDUARD BRAND NO 3 RD APPELLANT
STANLIB WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED RESPONDENT
Coram: SCOTT, BRAND, LEWIS, COMBRINCK JJA, and THERON AJA
Heard: 18 May 2007
Delivered: 31 May 2007
Summary: Oral contract to invest in respondent’s investment fund established
by evidence: representative of respondent had authority to bind it.
Neutral citation: This case may be cited as
Pretorius NO v Stanlib
Wealth Management Ltd  SCA 77 (RSA)
 The appellants are the trustees of two trusts, the Seca Trust (Seca)
and the Tableau Trust (Tableau). They instituted action in the Cape High
Court against the respondent, Stanlib Wealth Management Ltd (Stanlib), for
the payment of R5m, which they alleged had been invested on behalf of the
trusts (R2.5m each) with Stanlib, and which was repayable on demand. Only
the first appellant, Mr Hermanus Pretorius, played a role in the litigation.
Stanlib, at the time the investments were made, was called Liberty
Specialised Investments (Pty) Ltd and was a wholly owned subsidiary of
Liberty Life Group Ltd (Liberty). I shall refer to Stanlib rather than to Liberty
Specialised Investments for the sake of convenience.
 Griessel J in the high court granted judgment in favour of the
a tempore morae and the costs of two counsel. The basis
of his decision was that agents of the parties had concluded an oral
agreement in terms of which moneys ……..