South Africa Case Law

Speliti v NS Property Investments CC and Others (CA 2/2024)

Speliti v NS Property Investments CC and Others (CA 2/2024) [2025] ZAECBHC 3 (28 January 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CA 2/2024

Judges

Laing, Zono, Watt

The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a clear right to final relief under section 27(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. Although she paid more than 50% of the purchase price, the underlying contract of sale had already been cancelled by the first respondent, and there was no evidence that she ever demanded transfer. The appellant's assertion of full payment was not substantiated, and the receipts and transaction history supported the respondents' version. The court found no genuine dispute of fact warranting referral for oral evidence, as the appellant's allegations were unte…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Interdict Requirements
• Specific Performance
• Contract Cancellation
• Forfeiture Clause

Discovery Insure Limited v Masindi (85613/2017)

Discovery Insure Limited v Masindi (85613/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 198 (14 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

85613/2017

Judge

N V Khumalo

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The forfeiture clause in the insurance contract, while explicit, could not operate to retrospectively forfeit valid claims that had already accrued and been settled prior to the fraudulent breach. Such retrospective forfeiture is punitive and constitutes a penalty, thereby invoking the Conventional Penalties Act. The court considered the relevant authorities and principles, concluding that only the fraudulent portion of the claim was subject to forfeiture. The applicant's arguments regarding th…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Contract
• Fraudulent Claims
• Forfeiture Clause
• Penalty Clause
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Award

Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd v Tambwe and Others (19432/2019)

Magic Vending (Pty) Ltd v Tambwe and Others (19432/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 175; 2021 (2) SA 512 (WCC) (7 December 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19432/2019

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that the lease was validly cancelled in accordance with its forfeiture clause, which is not contrary to the Consumer Protection Act or public policy. The Consumer Protection Act does not apply to month-to-month leases in the manner argued by the respondent, and the Rental Housing Act's requirement for one month's notice does not apply to termination for breach. The respondent did not receive the initial notices, but service of the eviction proceedings constituted effective notice of termination. The forfeiture clause is not unconscionable or unfair in the circumstances, as the…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Lease Cancellation
• Forfeiture Clause
• Consumer Protection Act
• Rental Housing Act

Hyprop Investments Limited v Superstrike Investments 56 (Pty) Ltd t/a Baby Boom (6828/2019)

Hyprop Investments Limited v Superstrike Investments 56 (Pty) Ltd t/a Baby Boom (6828/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 212 (13 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6828/2019

Judge

R. Strydom

Summary judgment was refused in a lease dispute where the defendant showed a bona fide defence, disputed cancellation, and a counterclaim.

• Summary Judgment
• Lease Cancellation
• Eviction
• Forfeiture Clause
• Bona Fide Defence
• Summary-judgment

Edmalux (Pty) Ltd v Van Hulsteyns Attorneys and Another (26373/2016)

Edmalux (Pty) Ltd v Van Hulsteyns Attorneys and Another (26373/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 75 (16 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26373/2016

Judge

A Gautschi

The court found that the agreement of sale had lapsed due to the applicant's failure to pay the deposit to the auctioneer as required, rendering the agreement null and void. In such circumstances, each party must restore what was received, and the applicant is entitled to repayment of the capital amount held in trust. Even if the agreement had not lapsed, the forfeiture clause did not entitle the seller to retain amounts earmarked for SARS, such as transfer duty, as these were not paid to the seller but to a third party. The second respondent's cancellation based on alleged non-compliance wit…

Source excerpt

• Sale Of Land
• Forfeiture Clause
• Trust Account Funds
• Contract Cancellation
• Repayment Of Transfer Duty

Van Niekerk v W en A Le Roux Slaghuis (Pty) Ltd and Another (73622/2015)

Van Niekerk v W en A Le Roux Slaghuis (Pty) Ltd and Another (73622/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1015 (7 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

73622/2015

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that the agreement between the applicant and respondents was susceptible to repudiation, as the applicant had already performed by paying the deposit, commission, and VAT. The respondents' conduct in selling and removing the cold rooms, freezer rooms, and fixed rails and hooks, which were integral to the property as described in the auction, constituted a deliberate and unequivocal intention not to deliver the property as sold. This amounted to repudiation. The applicant's immediate communication of his perception of repudiation and withdrawal from the agreement was reasonable…

Source excerpt

• Repudiation Of Contract
• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Auction Sale
• Forfeiture Clause
• Anticipatory Breach

Culterra Properties (Pty) v Culterra (Pty) Ltd and Others (52908/2009)

Culterra Properties (Pty) v Culterra (Pty) Ltd and Others (52908/2009) [2016] ZAGPJHC 281 (10 March 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

52908/2009

Judge

S Weiner

High Court judgment on a failed business sale and penalty clause. The plaintiff sought to reduce forfeiture under the Conventional Penalties Act, but the claim was dismissed.

• Contract Breach
• Conventional Penalties Act
• Forfeiture Clause
• Onus Of Proof
• Reduction Of Penalty
• Conventional-penalties-act

Venter v Khan and Others (14185/2011)

Venter v Khan and Others (14185/2011) [2014] ZAKZDHC 48 (3 November 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

14185/2011

Judge

D Pillay

The court found that clause 7 of the extension agreement, which purported to allow the employer to reclaim the defendant's membership interest in Bubaluba Properties CC upon her resignation, was unconscionable and contrary to public policy. The clause operated as a penalty, depriving the defendant of remuneration she had earned through her performance and tenure. The evidence established that the defendant was constructively dismissed due to the plaintiff's conduct, including demotion, unfounded allegations, unreasonable demands, and breaches of remuneration agreements. The plaintiff's action…

Source excerpt

• Constructive Dismissal
• Remuneration Dispute
• Forfeiture Clause
• Contra Bonos Mores
• Rectification Of Contract
• Close Corporation Membership

SVK Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Croock and Another (A1012/2013)

SVK Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Croock and Another (A1012/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 857 (31 October 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A1012/2013

Judges

Potterill, Baqwa, Bam

Appeal dismissed after the crane had been sold; the court also refused condonation for late filing and held the appellant had not shown a prima facie right.

• Interim Interdict
• Condonation
• Forfeiture Clause
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Sale Of Goods
• Default Judgment

Botha and Another v Rich N.O. and Others (CCT 89/13)

Botha and Another v Rich N.O. and Others (CCT 89/13) [2014] ZACC 11; 2014 (4) SA 124 (CC); 2014 (7) BCLR 741 (CC) (17 April 2014)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 89/13

Judges

Moseneke, Skweyiya, Cameron, Dambuza, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that section 27(1) of the Alienation of Land Act confers on a purchaser who has paid at least half the purchase price the right to demand transfer of the property, subject to registration of a mortgage bond for the balance. This right is enforceable by specific performance unless the purchaser is in breach of reciprocal obligations, in which case the seller may raise the exceptio non adimpleti contractus. Ms Botha was in arrears but made a tender to pay the outstanding amounts and municipal charges upon transfer. The Court found that denying transfer in these cir…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Specific Performance
• Forfeiture Clause
• Reciprocity In Contract
• Constitutional Control Of Contract
• Disproportionate Penalty