Steenkamp v Van Staden and Another (21667/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 401 (4 August 2020)

Steenkamp v Van Staden and Another (21667/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 401 (4 August 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the breach clause (clause 13) of the contract, which required written notice granting the respondents 14 days to remedy any breach. The applicant's notice of cancellation was immediate and did not afford the respondents the required period to remedy the alleged breach. As strict compliance with a lex commissoria is required, the applicant did not establish a right to cancel the agreement. Consequently, the purported cancellation had no legal effect, and the relief sought by the applicant was denied.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 401
Parties
Applicant: Linda Magdalena Steenkamp; Respondent: Martinus Petrus Van Staden; Respondent: Veronique Van Staden
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2020
Case Number
21667/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Fabricius
Legal Topics
Contract Cancellation, Lex Commissoria, Unlawful Occupation, Breach Notice Requirement
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contract Cancellation Lex Commissoria Unlawful Occupation Breach Notice Requirement

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Magdalena Steenkamp

Applicant

Martinus Petrus Van Staden

Respondent

Veronique Van Staden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant validly cancelled the purchase and sale agreement for the property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the breach clause requiring notice to remedy within 14 days.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are in unlawful occupation as a result of the alleged cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the breach clause (clause 13) of the contract, which required written notice granting the respondents 14 days to remedy any breach. The applicant's notice of cancellation was immediate and did not afford the respondents the required period to remedy the alleged breach. As strict compliance with a lex commissoria is required, the applicant did not establish a right to cancel the agreement. Consequently, the purported cancellation had no legal effect, and the relief sought by the applicant was denied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.