Ostensible authority vs estoppel
Where a plaintiff is aware that the defendant will, or will probably, raise a defense of lack of authority, there can be no criticism of them for pleading ostensible authority from the outset, either as an alternative to actual authority, or on its own.
Estoppel is a shield and not a weapon Estoppel serves two purposes: It places an obstacle in the path of a case that might otherwise succeed or it removes an impediment in the path of a case that might fail without its removal The proposition that estoppel may only be used as a shield and not a sword does not relate to the manner in which it is pleaded, but to the use to which it is put.
An example of an attempt to use it to create a cause of action is furnished by Union Government v National Bank of South Africa Ltd. The view of the court and its presiding officers is that actual authority and ostensible or apparent authority are the opposite sides of the same coin. This is explained on the basis that a misrepresentation that a person has authority may lead to the appearance that the agent has the power to act on behalf of the principal and that this is known as ostensible or apparent authority in our law. So ostensible authority is treated as a form of actual authority, in contrast to estoppel, which is no authority at all
Reference Makate v Vodacom (Pty) (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13; 2016 (6) BCLR 709 (CC); 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC) (26 April) http://www.safii.org
legalmindset.law.blog 