Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd (20711/14) [2015] ZASCA 164; 2016 (2) SA 586 (SCA); [2016] 2 All SA 351 (SCA) (25 November 2015)

Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd (20711/14) [2015] ZASCA 164; 2016 (2) SA 586 (SCA); [2016] 2 All SA 351 (SCA) (25 November 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Masstores operated a general food supermarket at Capegate, as evidenced by the ordinary meaning of 'supermarket', photographic evidence, and Masstores' own representations. This conduct breached the restraint clause in Masstores' lease agreement, which was inextricably linked to Pick n Pay's exclusivity right. The court found that Masstores' actions constituted unlawful interference with Pick n Pay's contractual relationship with Hyprop, meeting the requirements of an unlawful act, interference, and intent. The exclusivity right was deemed integral to the lease and not a collateral right, thus binding on successors. The appeal was dismissed, and the...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 164
Parties
Appellant: Masstores (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Hyprop Investments Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Case Number
20711/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Maya, Leach, Theron, Majiedt, Zondi
Legal Topics
Unlawful Interference With Contract, Restraint of Trade, Lease Exclusivity, Anchor Tenant Rights, Pure Economic Loss, Huur Gaat Voor Koop
Delict Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Unlawful Interference With Contract Restraint of Trade Lease Exclusivity Anchor Tenant Rights Pure Economic Loss +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masstores (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Hyprop Investments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Masstores operated a general food supermarket at Capegate in breach of its lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether Masstores' conduct constituted unlawful interference in Pick n Pay's contractual relationship with Hyprop.
  3. 3 Whether Pick n Pay's right to exclusivity is a collateral right or integral to the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Masstores operated a general food supermarket at Capegate, as evidenced by the ordinary meaning of 'supermarket', photographic evidence, and Masstores' own representations. This conduct breached the restraint clause in Masstores' lease agreement, which was inextricably linked to Pick n Pay's exclusivity right. The court found that Masstores' actions constituted unlawful interference with Pick n Pay's contractual relationship with Hyprop, meeting the requirements of an unlawful act, interference, and intent. The exclusivity right was deemed integral to the lease and not a collateral right, thus binding on successors. The appeal was dismissed, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.