South Africa Case Law

Bitline SA 951 CC TA Sasol Roodepoort West v Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/052612)

Bitline SA 951 CC TA Sasol Roodepoort West v Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/052612) [2024] ZAGPJHC 390 (2 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/052612

Judges

Windell, Unterhalter, Siwendu

The High Court dismissed Bitline’s appeal against interim execution pending appeal, holding that Sasol and Amrich showed exceptional circumstances and irreparable harm.

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Holding Over
• Section 18 Supreme Courts Act
• Eviction
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Irreparable Harm

Sasol Oil (Pty) Limited v Bitline SA 951 CC t/a Sasol Roodepoort West and Others (2023-052191)

Sasol Oil (Pty) Limited v Bitline SA 951 CC t/a Sasol Roodepoort West and Others (2023-052191) [2024] ZAGPJHC 177 (29 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-052191

Judge

L R Adams

The High Court granted Sasol Oil’s section 18 application, allowing its prior eviction and interdict orders to operate pending appeal.

• Section 18 Superior Courts Act
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Eviction
• Unlawful Occupation

Sasol Oil and Another v Bitline SA 951 CC t/a Sasol Roodepoort West and Another (2023-052191 ; 2023-052612)

Sasol Oil and Another v Bitline SA 951 CC t/a Sasol Roodepoort West and Another (2023-052191 ; 2023-052612) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1437 (11 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-052191 ; 2023-052612

Judge

L R Adams

The court found that the written addendum to the franchise agreement expressly provided for termination by effluxion of time on 30 June 2022, with no requirement for further notice unless terminated earlier. The evidence did not support Bitline SA's claim of a subsequent extension. Upon termination, Bitline SA lost its right to occupy and operate the Sasol-branded service station. Sasol Oil established a clear right to protect its intellectual property and brand, and irreparable harm would result from continued unauthorised use. Amrich, as owner, proved its entitlement to eviction under the r…

Source excerpt

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Commercial Eviction
• Rei Vindicatio
• Interpretation Of Contracts

Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Roseville Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Sondela Service Station (4881/2022P)

Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Roseville Projects (Pty) Ltd t/a Sondela Service Station (4881/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 105 (21 June 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

4881/2022P

Judge

ZP Nkosi

The court found that the franchise agreement between the parties expired by effluxion of time after a two-year extension, and no further agreement was concluded. The respondent's continued occupation of the premises was unlawful, and its refusal to vacate constituted holding over. The referral to arbitration under section 12B of the Petroleum Products Act was without merit, as the arbitrator cannot create a contract or override ownership rights. The applicant, as owner and successor to the franchise rights, was entitled to eviction. The respondent failed to demonstrate any unfair or unreasona…

Source excerpt

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Eviction
• Holding Over
• Petroleum Products Act
• Contractual Autonomy

Sasol Oil (Pty) Limited v Eurozar (Pty) Limited and Others (56719/2021)

Sasol Oil (Pty) Limited v Eurozar (Pty) Limited and Others (56719/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 17 (19 January 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

56719/2021

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the franchise agreement between Sasol and Eurozar expired by effluxion of time on 7 May 2021 and was not extended. The arbitration award, which is final and binding, confirmed that Sasol's refusal to extend the agreement was neither unreasonable nor unfair. Eurozar's attempt to import a tacit or implied term of good faith into the agreement was not pleaded in the arbitration and was not substantiated by facts in the present application. Even if such a term existed, it would not entitle Eurozar to remain in occupation beyond the express terms of the agreement. The urgency…

Source excerpt

• Commercial Eviction
• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Urgent Interdict
• Implied Terms
• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Arbitration Review

Schickerling NO and Another v Chickenland (Pty) Ltd t/a Nando's (22712/2016)

Schickerling NO and Another v Chickenland (Pty) Ltd t/a Nando's (22712/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 208 (15 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22712/2016

Judge

S Potterill

Urgent application for an interim mandatory interdict pending franchise litigation dismissed after the court found the franchise had been validly cancelled for non-payment.

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Interim Interdict
• Lex Commissorio
• Notice Requirements
• Urgency In Motion Court

Shell South Africa Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Exclusive Access Trading 431 (Pty) Ltd (5434/2014)

Shell South Africa Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Exclusive Access Trading 431 (Pty) Ltd (5434/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 346 (28 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5434/2014

Judge

Andrews

The High Court granted an interdict, return of assets, and eviction after finding the franchise agreement had been lawfully cancelled and the respondent was unlawfully trading under Shell branding.

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Intellectual Property Protection
• Eviction
• Interdict
• Breach Of Contract
• Possessory Rights

Moonstone Investments 97 (Pty) Ltd v Geffen International Realty Franchise (Pty) Ltd (22209/2011)

Moonstone Investments 97 (Pty) Ltd v Geffen International Realty Franchise (Pty) Ltd (22209/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 462 (16 November 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22209/2011

Judge

Davis

Interim interdict granted pending arbitration over a disputed franchise cancellation and alleged interference with the applicant’s business and commissions.

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Interdict
• Arbitration Clause Enforcement
• Spoliation
• Urgent Application
• Franchise-agreement-termination

Glenn Aquadro t/a Dodge City vs Salfay Trading CC and Others (16746/2009)

Glenn Aquadro t/a Dodge City vs Salfay Trading CC and Others (16746/2009) [2011] ZAWCHC 234 (25 May 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16746/2009

Judge

Cleaver

The High Court granted a final interdict after cancellation of a franchise agreement, ordering removal of Dodge City branding, decor elements, and related materials.

• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Trademark Infringement
• Copyright Protection
• Final Interdict
• Removal Of Branding
• Franchise-agreement-termination

Denmar Trading BP and Others v Corporation Retail SE (Pty) Ltd (4573/06)

Denmar Trading BP and Others v Corporation Retail SE (Pty) Ltd (4573/06) [2006] ZAWCHC 28; [2008] 1 All SA 47 (C) (27 June 2006)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4573/06

Judge

Meer

The court found that the applicants retained peaceful and undisturbed possession of the business premises until the arrival of the respondent's directors, at which point possession was taken without their consent. The applicants maintained control over the premises, keys, employees, and business operations during the stock taking, and did not regard it as a takeover. The respondent failed to prove genuine and freely given consent to dispossession. The court held that the respondent's conduct amounted to unlawful spoliation, entitling the applicants to restoration of possession under the manda…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Franchise Agreement Termination
• Possession And Spoliation
• Urgent Interdict
• Parate Executie
• Right Of Access To Courts