South Africa Case Law

Charalambos Commercial Properties CC v Transkei Furnishers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2521/2022)

Charalambos Commercial Properties CC v Transkei Furnishers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2521/2022) [2025] ZAECMKHC 46 (29 April 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2521/2022

Judge

J M Roberson

The court found that the applicant validly exercised its option to purchase the property under the notarial lease. The retrospective reinstatement of the first respondent validated the resolution authorising Mrs Vakalisa to conclude the lease. Mrs Vakalisa, as representative of the sole shareholder and director, had authority to bind the company, and the principle of unanimous consent applied. The disposal of the sole asset was properly approved. The applicant acted in good faith and was entitled to rely on the Turquand rule and section 20(7) of the Companies Act. Allegations of manipulation,…

Source excerpt

• Company Director Authority
• Option To Purchase
• Unanimous Shareholder Consent
• Turquand Rule
• Public Policy Contracts
• Mortgage Of Leasehold

Milga Properties (Pty) Ltd v Kerja (Pty) Ltd (04947/2024)

Milga Properties (Pty) Ltd v Kerja (Pty) Ltd (04947/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 340 (25 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

04947/2024

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The court granted eviction, holding that the respondent’s breach of the lease and settlement agreement defeated any right to exercise the purchase option.

• Eviction
• Lease Cancellation
• Pre Emptive Right
• Option To Purchase
• Settlement Agreement
• Non Variation Clause

Wetlands Country Retreat (Pty) Ltd and Another v Schutmann Agri (Pty) Ltd (13203/2023P)

Wetlands Country Retreat (Pty) Ltd and Another v Schutmann Agri (Pty) Ltd (13203/2023P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 13 (23 February 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

13203/2023P

Judge

Pitman

The High Court held that the respondent did not validly exercise an option to purchase farmland and granted eviction, interdictory relief, and costs.

• Lease Termination
• Option To Purchase
• Eviction Of Commercial Entity
• Suspensive Condition
• Urgent Interdict
• Specific Performance

Domel v Khumalo and Another (2020-34517)

Domel v Khumalo and Another (2020-34517) [2024] ZAGPJHC 164 (19 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/34517

Judge

Z Khan

The High Court granted eviction after finding no proved option to buy, sustained non-payment of rent and charges, and a properly cancelled lease.

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Oral Lease Agreement
• Option To Purchase
• Non Payment Of Rent
• Cancellation Of Lease
• Eviction-under-pie-act

Keystone Development (Pty) Limited v van der Merwe N.O and Others (098502/2023)

Keystone Development (Pty) Limited v van der Merwe N.O and Others (098502/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 104 (13 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

098502/2023

Judge

Retief

Urgent interim interdict granted over phase 2 of a property development dispute; phase 5 relief failed, and each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

• Interim Interdict
• Option To Purchase
• Variation Of Contract
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Prima Facie Right
• Settlement Agreement

Zenith Estates CC v Blue Gum Estate (Pty) Ltd and Another (8294/22P)

Zenith Estates CC v Blue Gum Estate (Pty) Ltd and Another (8294/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 148 (27 November 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8294/22P

Judge

Annandale

The High Court held that Zenith Estates validly exercised an option to buy the House Sub-division and ordered transfer of four erven against R900,000.

• Specific Performance
• Option To Purchase
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Subdivision And Transfer
• Contractual Interpretation
• Specific-performance

Transnet Limited v ERF 152927 Cape Town (PTY) Ltd : In re: ERF 152927 Cape Town (PTY) Ltd v Transnet Limited (35967/2010)

Transnet Limited v ERF 152927 Cape Town (PTY) Ltd : In re: ERF 152927 Cape Town (PTY) Ltd v Transnet Limited (35967/2010) [2022] ZAGPJHC 542 (29 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

35967/2010

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The court found that Transnet Limited's application for leave to amend its plea and file a counter-claim was brought in bad faith, with undue delay, and solely to frustrate the enforcement of a final and binding order (the Schabort order) that has stood unchallenged for 22 years. The court held that the amendment would cause significant prejudice to Erf 152927 Cape Town (PTY) Ltd, as key witnesses and documents are no longer available and memories have faded. The issues raised by Transnet have already been adjudicated and are precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. Transnet failed to disch…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Counter Claims
• Res Judicata
• Option To Purchase
• Prejudice In Procedure
• Specific Performance

Du Plessis v Mouton and Others (4180/2021)

Du Plessis v Mouton and Others (4180/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 101 (21 February 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4180/2021

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

High Court eviction matter: the lease expired, the alleged sale option was not validly exercised, and the respondents were found to be unlawful occupiers.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Lease Agreement Termination
• Option To Purchase
• Unlawful Occupation
• Occupational Interest
• Punitive Costs

Goosen and Another v Wiehahn and Others (761/2018)

Goosen and Another v Wiehahn and Others (761/2018) [2019] ZASCA 137; 2020 (2) SA 341 (SCA) (1 October 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

761/2018

Judges

Ponnan, Cachalia, Zondi, Dambuza, Nicholls

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right conferred by clause 2.3 of the will was a personal right regulated by testamentary disposition, not a pactum de contrahendo. The court found that the Alienation of Land Act's formalities did not apply to such testamentary rights, and the executrix was bound to offer the farm to the first appellant in accordance with the will. The sale agreement was valid, and the application to declare it null and void was misconceived. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the will must give effect to the testator's wishes and that the right to purcha…

Source excerpt

• Interpretation Of Wills
• Testamentary Conditions
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Option To Purchase
• Succession
• Personal Rights Vs Real Rights

Kretzman v Kretzmann and Another (2644/2018)

Kretzman v Kretzmann and Another (2644/2018) [2019] ZAECPEHC 54; 2020 (1) SA 162 (ECP) (27 August 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2644/2018

Judge

J W Eksteen

The court held that while an option agreement (the pactum de contrahendo) relating to the sale of land need not be in writing, the substantive offer to purchase must comply with the formalities prescribed by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. In this case, both the option agreement and the terms of sale were orally concluded. Since the offer was not in writing, it could not result in a binding contract upon acceptance, and the oral option agreement could not be validly exercised. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim based on the oral agreement fails to disclose a cause of action and must…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Option To Purchase
• Formalities Of Contracts
• Exception Procedure