Sonap Petroleum (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis (483/90) [1992] ZASCA 56; 1992 (3) SA 234 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 114 (A) (30 March 1992)

Sonap Petroleum (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis (483/90) [1992] ZASCA 56; 1992 (3) SA 234 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 114 (A) (30 March 1992)

Rectification was denied because the respondent, having read the addendum and realized the change in the lease term, intended to agree to the reduction, negating any common intention to retain the 20-year period. The alternative claim based on unilateral mistake succeeded because the respondent, an experienced...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 56
Parties
Appellant: Sonap Petroleum (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Haralabos Pappadogianis
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 1992
Case Number
483/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; addendum declared void insofar as it purported to reduce the lease period; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
Joubert, Botha, Harms
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Unilateral Mistake, Lease Agreement, Consensus, Mortgage Bond
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Rectification of Contract Unilateral Mistake Lease Agreement Consensus Mortgage Bond

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonap Petroleum (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Haralabos Pappadogianis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the addendum to the notarial lease reducing the lease period from 20 to 15 years should be rectified due to a common continuing intention.
  2. 2 Whether the addendum is void due to a unilateral mistake by the appellant regarding the lease period.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was aware of or ought to have been aware of the appellant's mistake.

Ratio Decidendi

Rectification was denied because the respondent, having read the addendum and realized the change in the lease term, intended to agree to the reduction, negating any common intention to retain the 20-year period. The alternative claim based on unilateral mistake succeeded because the respondent, an experienced businessman, was aware of the original lease term and the financial implications. He noticed the reduction and discussed the addendum with his attorney, making it overwhelmingly probable that he was alive to the possibility of a mistake. By failing to speak and instead accepting the benefit of the mistake, the respondent snatched a bargain. There was no consensus, actual or imputed,...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; addendum declared void insofar as it purported to reduce the lease period; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: (a) It is declared that the Addendum to Notarial Deed of Lease K1335/1975L is void and of no effect insofar as it purports to reduce the period of the Main Lease from 20 to 15 years. (b) Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of suit.