South Africa Case Law

Nano and Another v Mosima and Others (53521/15)

Nano and Another v Mosima and Others (53521/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 163 (8 February 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53521/15

Judge

Raulinga

The court found that both the Deed of Sale and the Memorandum of Agreement were void ab initio due to statutory prohibitions under the Agricultural Holdings (Transvaal) Registration Act and non-compliance with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The agreements failed to meet statutory formalities, including proper identification of parties and a clear description of the property. As a result, the contracts were unenforceable and conferred no rights of action. The applicants, having performed under the void agreements, were entitled to recover the net difference between their payments…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Statutory Prohibition
• Void Contract
• Recovery Of Payments
• Illegal Eviction

Mors and Another v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (26705/2013)

Mors and Another v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (26705/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 681 (5 September 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

26705/2013

Judge

Davis, AJ

The High Court held that the notice of surrender did not trigger section 5(1) protection, and dismissed the bid to nullify the sale in execution.

• Sale In Execution
• Voluntary Surrender
• Insolvency Act Section 5
• Statutory Prohibition
• Property Transfer
• Sale-in-execution

Hubbard v Cool Ideas 1186 CC (580/12)

Hubbard v Cool Ideas 1186 CC (580/12) [2013] ZASCA 71; 2013 (5) SA 112 (SCA); [2013] 3 All SA 387 (SCA) (28 May 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

580/12

Judges

NAVSA, PONNAN, THERON, WILLIS, MBHA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 10 of the Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act 95 of 1998 prohibits an unregistered home builder from receiving any consideration for the construction of a home. The prohibition is directed at the person seeking payment, not the validity of the underlying agreement. The subsequent registration of Cool Ideas did not cure the statutory prohibition applicable at the time of construction. The intervention of arbitration does not alter the legal position, as a court cannot make an order that would sanction an illegality. Judicial deference to arbi…

Source excerpt

• Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Statutory Prohibition
• Registration Of Home Builders
• Illegality In Contract
• Judicial Deference To Arbitration

Lupacchini NO and Another v Minister of Safety and Security (16/2010)

Lupacchini NO and Another v Minister of Safety and Security (16/2010) [2010] ZASCA 108; 2010 (6) SA 457 (SCA) ; [2011] 2 All SA 138 (SCA) (17 September 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

16/2010

Judges

Nugent, Ponnan, Cachalia, Bosielo, Tshiqi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act requires trustees to be authorised in writing by the Master before acting in that capacity, including commencing legal proceedings. The absence of criminal sanction for unauthorised acts indicates that the legislature intended such acts to be void and of no effect. The regulatory scheme of the Act is designed to protect both beneficiaries and the public by ensuring proper supervision of trustees. There is no basis to distinguish legal proceedings from other transactions performed by unauthorised trustees. All…

Source excerpt

• Trust Property Control Act
• Capacity Of Trustees
• Nullity Of Proceedings
• Statutory Prohibition
• Locus Standi

Pratsch t/a Caltex Mooi River v Rasmussen (10369/2004)

Pratsch t/a Caltex Mooi River v Rasmussen (10369/2004) [2007] ZAKZHC 56; 2008 (2) SA 243 (N) (7 June 2007)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

10369/2004

Judge

Koen

The court found that neither the Petroleum Products Act nor its regulations expressly provide that a contract concluded in contravention of regulation 4(1) is null and void. Invalidity should not be imputed unless necessary to achieve the legislative purpose, and greater inconvenience may result from rescission than from the unlawful act itself. The court adopted the reasoning in Smith v Louw's Garage, holding that the legislature did not intend contracts in contravention of regulation 4(1) to be invalid. Therefore, the sale of petroleum products by the plaintiff to the defendant during the r…

Source excerpt

• Petroleum Products Regulation
• Credit Sale Enforceability
• Statutory Prohibition
• Contract Invalidity
• Special Plea
• Costs Reservation

Metro Western Cape (Pty) Ltd. v Ross (20/85)

Metro Western Cape (Pty) Ltd. v Ross (20/85) [1986] ZASCA 36; [1986] 2 All SA 288 (A) (26 March 1986)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20/85

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Trengove, Viljoen, Boshoff

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Registration and Licensing of Businesses Ordinance was enacted to control the suitability of persons and premises for specified businesses in the public interest, not to regulate the contractual relationship between traders and customers. The prohibition in section 3 is directed at the person carrying on business without a certificate of registration and licence, not at the making or performance of particular contracts. The court found that rendering contracts void would cause grave inconvenience and injustice to innocent customers, depriving them of…

Source excerpt

• Illegality Of Contract
• Statutory Prohibition
• Registration And Licensing Of Businesses
• Public Policy
• Enforceability Of Contracts