Shillings v Cronje and Others (462/85) [1986] ZASCA 133; [1988] 1 All SA 33 (A) (27 November 1986)

Shillings v Cronje and Others (462/85) [1986] ZASCA 133; [1988] 1 All SA 33 (A) (27 November 1986)

The court held that the respondents did not constitute an association of persons or a partnership within the meaning of the Group Areas Act, as they were merely joint contracting parties and not an organised body acting collectively. The lease agreement was illegal and unenforceable against the second respondent, who was a disqualified person under the Act and lacked the necessary permit. However, the illegality was personal to the second respondent and did not affect the liability of the other respondents. Clause 36 of the lease rendered the remaining respondents jointly and severally liable to the appellant, and the contract was not vitiated in its entirety by the disqualification of...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 133
Parties
Appellant: Shillings CC; Respondent: Isak Johannes Andries Cronje; Respondent: Cassim Mahomed Cassim; Respondent: Benjamin Johannes van der Merwe; Respondent: Paris Callis; Respondent: Andries Esterhuizen
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1986
Case Number
462/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Declaratory Order in the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part: succeeded against first, third, fourth, and fifth respondents; dismissed against second respondent.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Joubert, Hoexter, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Group Areas Act, Illegality of Contract, Joint and Several Liability, Lease Agreement, Association of Persons
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Group Areas Act Illegality of Contract Joint and Several Liability Lease Agreement Association of Persons

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shillings CC

Appellant

Isak Johannes Andries Cronje

Respondent

Cassim Mahomed Cassim

Respondent

Benjamin Johannes van der Merwe

Respondent

Paris Callis

Respondent

Andries Esterhuizen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Declaratory Order in the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are jointly and severally bound to the appellant under the written lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement is void for illegality under section 27(1)(a) of the Group Areas Act 36 of 1966.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents constitute an association of persons or a partnership within the meaning of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents did not constitute an association of persons or a partnership within the meaning of the Group Areas Act, as they were merely joint contracting parties and not an organised body acting collectively. The lease agreement was illegal and unenforceable against the second respondent, who was a disqualified person under the Act and lacked the necessary permit. However, the illegality was personal to the second respondent and did not affect the liability of the other respondents. Clause 36 of the lease rendered the remaining respondents jointly and severally liable to the appellant, and the contract was not vitiated in its entirety by the disqualification of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part: succeeded against first, third, fourth, and fifth respondents; dismissed against second respondent.

Orders

  • As against first, third, fourth, and fifth respondents, the appeal succeeds and is upheld.
  • First, fourth, and fifth respondents are jointly and severally to pay appellant's costs of appeal, including the fees of two counsel.