South Africa Case Law

Glowing Rooms (Pty) Ltd v Levin N O and Others (468/2023)

Glowing Rooms (Pty) Ltd v Levin N O and Others (468/2023) [2024] ZASCA 33 (28 March 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

468/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mbatha, Mabindla-Boqwana, Weiner, Kgoele

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents, as trustees of The Woodlands Trust, were entitled to rely on clause 2.1 of the lease agreement to terminate the lease on one month's notice. The Trust's initial denial of the existence of a lease in the first eviction application was rendered moot by the high court's finding that a lease existed, and the Trust's subsequent conduct in issuing a termination notice was consistent with the lease terms. The notice of termination was clear and unambiguous, and did not amount to repudiation. The court rejected Glowing Rooms' argument that public…

Source excerpt

• Lease Termination
• Repudiation
• Public Policy In Contract
• Specific Performance
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Eviction Order

A.S and Another v J.C and Others (A63/2017)

A.S and Another v J.C and Others (A63/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 71; [2019] 3 All SA 425 (WCC) (19 June 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A63/2017

Judges

J I Cloete, M K Parker

The court found that the lessor did not lawfully cancel the lease on 3 October 2017. The demand conflated rental and electricity charges, requiring compliance with the notice provisions for breaches other than rental, which was not done. The lessor historically accepted late payments without protest, creating a reasonable belief that strict performance would not be suddenly enforced. The presence of a non-waiver clause did not entitle the lessor to ambush the lessee by enforcing strict compliance without warning. In the specific circumstances, including the risk of homelessness for vulnerable…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Lease Cancellation
• Public Policy In Contract
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Good Faith In Contractual Performance
• Notice To Remedy Breach

Jeremiah v Communicare, a non-profit company and Another (A55/2018)

Jeremiah v Communicare, a non-profit company and Another (A55/2018) [2018] ZAWCHC 158 (21 August 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A55/2018

Judges

Baartman, Parker

The court found that the first respondent failed to prove that the appellant actually received the required notices, as mandated by clause 29.3 of the lease agreement. The burden of proof was incorrectly shifted to the appellant by the lower court. Furthermore, the court accepted the appellant's version that she made and honoured arrangements to settle her arrears, which should have prevented eviction. The seven-day notice period for remedying breach was held to be unenforceable as it contravened the Consumer Protection Act and public policy, given the indefinite nature of the lease and the v…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie
• Consumer Protection Act Application
• Public Policy In Contracts
• Burden Of Proof
• Notice Requirements
• Constitutional Values In Contract

Wonderpark Handelaars CC v Kanonkop Stainless (Pty) Limited and Another (70923/2015)

Wonderpark Handelaars CC v Kanonkop Stainless (Pty) Limited and Another (70923/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 957 (16 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70923/2015

Judge

N Kollapen

The High Court refused leave to appeal in a lease-renewal dispute, finding no reasonable prospect of success and no compelling reason to hear the appeal.

• Lease Agreement Renewal
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Leave To Appeal Test
• Contractual Termination
• Leave-to-appeal
• Lease-renewal

Wonderpark Handelaars CC v Kanonkop Stainless (Pty) Limited and Another (70923/2015)

Wonderpark Handelaars CC v Kanonkop Stainless (Pty) Limited and Another (70923/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1044 (15 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70923/2015

Judge

N Kollapen

The High Court held that a lease renewal option was not validly exercised because no written notice was given, and rejected the claim that reliance on the clause was unconstitutional.

• Lease Termination
• Renewal Option
• Public Policy In Contract
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Eviction
• Good Faith In Contract

Mohamed's Leisure Holdings v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (10109/2015)

Mohamed's Leisure Holdings v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (10109/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 303; 2017 (4) SA 243 (GJ) (4 November 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10109/2015

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The court found that while the lease agreement and its cancellation clause did not offend public policy in themselves, the implementation of the cancellation clause in the specific circumstances of this case would result in manifest unfairness and disproportionate prejudice to the respondent. The respondent's late payment was solely attributable to its bank's administrative error, not to any fault of its own. The respondent took reasonable steps to ensure timely payment and relied on its bank's assurances. Eviction would cause irreparable harm to the respondent's business, employees, and repu…

Source excerpt

• Lease Cancellation
• Pacta Sunt Servanda
• Ubuntu And Fairness
• Public Policy In Contract
• Eviction
• Constitutional Values In Contract

Bredenkamp and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (599/09)

Bredenkamp and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (599/09) [2010] ZASCA 75; 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA) ; 2010 (9) BCLR 892 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 113 (SCA) (27 May 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

599/09

Judges

Harms, Cloete, Ponnan, Cachalia, Saldulker

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the bank was entitled to terminate the banking relationship with the appellants on reasonable notice in terms of both express and implied contractual rights. The court rejected the argument that fairness is a free-standing requirement for the exercise of a contractual right, finding that unless the enforcement of a contract implicates an identified constitutional value or public policy consideration, there is no basis to refuse enforcement on grounds of fairness alone. The appellants conceded the validity of the contractual term and did not identify any c…

Source excerpt

• Banker Client Relationship
• Termination Of Contract
• Public Policy
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Contractual Fairness

Africa v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (40658/2005)

Africa v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (40658/2005) [2007] ZAGPHC 42 (29 May 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

40658/2005

Judge

JCW Van Rooyen

The court found that there were reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the validity of service of summons and the enforceability of contractual terms, particularly the voetstoots clause, in light of constitutional standards. The conflicting evidence regarding service, the absence of a detailed affidavit from the sheriff, and the evolving approach to public policy in contract law justified granting leave to appeal. The court emphasized that constitutional values now inform public policy and the enforceability of contracts, and that another court may…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Public Policy In Contract
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Rule 42 Rescission
• Voetstoots Clause

Afrox Healthcare Bpk v Strydom (172/2001)

Afrox Healthcare Bpk v Strydom (172/2001) [2002] ZASCA 73; 2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA) [2002] 4 All SA 125 (SCA) (31 May 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

172/2001

Judges

Nienaber, Harms, Zulman, Mpati, Brand

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the exclusionary clause in the hospital admission contract is valid and enforceable. The respondent's claim was based on contract, and he signed the admission document containing the clause, which excluded liability for negligence except for intentional misconduct. The court found no evidence of an unequal bargaining position or that the clause was objectively unexpected in hospital contracts. The clause does not contravene public policy or constitutional values, including section 27 of the Constitution, as it does not prevent access to medical care or un…

Source excerpt

• Exclusion Of Liability
• Public Policy
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Hospital Negligence
• Contractual Autonomy