Masstores (Pty) Limited v Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Limited (CCT242/15) [2016] ZACC 42; 2017 (1) SA 613 (CC); 2017 (2) BCLR 152 (CC); [2017] 1 CPLR 1 (CC) (25 November 2016)

Masstores (Pty) Limited v Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Limited (CCT242/15) [2016] ZACC 42; 2017 (1) SA 613 (CC); 2017 (2) BCLR 152 (CC); [2017] 1 CPLR 1 (CC) (25 November 2016)

The majority held that Pick n Pay's claim for an interdict against Masstores, a third party to the exclusivity contract, could not succeed in delict. The law does not generally recognise a legal duty on third parties not to infringe contractually derived exclusive rights to trade, as such protection would undermine free competition. The exclusivity right is enforceable against the contracting party (Hyprop), not against other tenants like Masstores. The majority found that Pick n Pay had an alternative contractual remedy against Hyprop and that Masstores's breach of its own lease did not amount to delictual wrongfulness towards Pick n Pay. The appeal was upheld, and the interdict against...

Citation
[2016] ZACC 42
Parties
Applicant: Masstores (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Limited
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2016
Case Number
CCT242/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, After High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal set aside; application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Nkabinde, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mbha, Mhlantla, Musi, Zondo
Legal Topics
Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations, Final Interdict, Wrongfulness, Exclusive Trading Rights, Lease Agreement, Aquilian Liability
Delict Commercial and Corporate Unlawful Interference With Contractual Relations Final Interdict Wrongfulness Exclusive Trading Rights Lease Agreement Aquilian Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masstores (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, After High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a third party's interference with contractually derived exclusive trading rights is actionable in delict.
  2. 2 Whether Pick n Pay's claim falls within the recognised category of delictual interference with contractual relations.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a final interdict against Masstores have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that Pick n Pay's claim for an interdict against Masstores, a third party to the exclusivity contract, could not succeed in delict. The law does not generally recognise a legal duty on third parties not to infringe contractually derived exclusive rights to trade, as such protection would undermine free competition. The exclusivity right is enforceable against the contracting party (Hyprop), not against other tenants like Masstores. The majority found that Pick n Pay had an alternative contractual remedy against Hyprop and that Masstores's breach of its own lease did not amount to delictual wrongfulness towards Pick n Pay. The appeal was upheld, and the interdict against...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal set aside; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal succeeds and the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal are set aside.