South Africa Case Law

Maremmana Home Owners' Association v Melnic Wine Solutions CC and Others (16839/2018)

Maremmana Home Owners' Association v Melnic Wine Solutions CC and Others (16839/2018) [2020] ZAWCHC 20 (11 March 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16839/2018

Judge

Binns-Ward

The High Court held that a homeowners’ association could not enforce subdivision and transfer of land under the sale clauses, and dismissed the application.

• Subdivision Of Agricultural Land Act
• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party
• Stipulatio Alteri
• Municipal Land Use Planning
• Transfer Of Land
• Standing To Sue

Loggenberg and Others v Maree (286/17)

Loggenberg and Others v Maree (286/17) [2018] ZASCA 24 (23 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

286/17

Judges

Seriti, Wallis, Swain, Pillay, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the oral agreement between Mr Maree and Mr Loggenberg was not a contract of sale but rather a contract for the benefit of a third party (the Trust), whereby Maree undertook to purchase Weltevreden and transfer it to the Trust upon reimbursement of his costs and repayment of the loan. The agreement did not contemplate a sale to the Trust and thus did not require compliance with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The pleadings, reasonably interpreted, disclosed a cause of action capable of enforcement. The court further found that the alleged vague…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Oral Agreements
• Exception Procedure
• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party
• Vagueness In Pleadings

De Lange v Zephan (Pty) Ltd and Others (82322/14)

De Lange v Zephan (Pty) Ltd and Others (82322/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 540 (22 July 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82322/14

Judge

Hiemstra

The court found that the buy-back agreement constituted a contract for the benefit of a third party, which the plaintiffs accepted by submitting their application forms and receiving share certificates. The HS Companies acquired enforceable rights against the defendants, and upon acceptance of the benefit, the plaintiffs replaced the HS Companies as parties to the buy-back clause. The business rescue plan did not validly vary or novate the plaintiffs' rights under the buy-back agreement, as the required procedures for variation—namely, a special resolution by 75% of shareholders and written a…

Source excerpt

• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party
• Business Rescue
• Summary Judgment
• Novation
• Variation Of Contract

Gushman NO and Another v Traut NO and Others (3981/2012)

Gushman NO and Another v Traut NO and Others (3981/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 217 (22 November 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3981/2012

Judge

J P Daffue

High Court rectified a cession agreement but refused cancellation and restitution, finding no repudiation or breach proved and treating the dispute as an internal management problem.

• Rectification Of Contract
• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party
• Repudiation
• Restitution
• Shareholder Dispute
• Rectification-of-contract

Potgieter v Potgieter NO and Others (629/2010)

Potgieter v Potgieter NO and Others (629/2010) [2011] ZASCA 181; 2012 (1) SA 637 (SCA) (30 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

629/2010

Judges

Navsa, Brand, Van Heerden, Leach, Majiedt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a trust deed variation was invalid because beneficiaries had already accepted the benefits, so their consent was required.

• Trust Variation
• Beneficiary Rights
• Acceptance Of Benefit
• Specific Performance
• Trust Property Control Act
• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party

Hofer and Others v Kevitt NO and Others (122/96)

Hofer and Others v Kevitt NO and Others (122/96) [1997] ZASCA 79; 1998 (1) SA 382 (SCA); [1997] 4 All SA 620 (A); (26 September 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

122/96

Judges

A P van Coller, Van Heerden, F H Grosskopf, Howie, Olivier

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the amendments to the Charles Dickson Trust deed were valid. The trustees acted within their powers in consenting to the amendments, and there was no legal basis to conclude that their discretion was fettered or that they failed to consider the interests of potential beneficiaries. The majority judgment in Crookes v Watson remains binding, confirming that a trust inter vivos is a contract for the benefit of a third party and may be varied unless the beneficiaries have accepted the benefits. The Court found no evidence of unscrupulous conduct or undue infl…

Source excerpt

• Trust Amendment
• Beneficiary Rights
• Undue Influence
• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party

Nine Hundred Umgeni Road (Pty) Ltd v Bali (92/85)

Nine Hundred Umgeni Road (Pty) Ltd v Bali (92/85) [1985] ZASCA 76; [1986] 1 All SA 289 (A) (12 September 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

92/85

Judges

Jansen, Kotzé, Viljoen, Grosskopf, Nicholas

The court held that a trustee contracting for a company to be formed is not personally liable unless the lease expressly or by necessary implication says so.

• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party
• Personal Liability Of Trustee
• Company To Be Formed
• Lease Agreement
• Company-to-be-formed
• Third-party-benefit-contract