Library

Legal court cases in South Africa refer to disputes brought before the courts for resolution under the law. These cases can involve a wide range of legal issues, including civil matters (such as contract disputes, property issues, and family law) and criminal matters (such as theft, assault, and fraud).

The South African court system includes various levels of courts, such as the Magistrates’ Courts, High Courts, Supreme Court of Appeal, and the Constitutional Court.  Each court has its jurisdiction and handles different types of cases.

PAST COURT CASES and JUDGEMENTS:    ↓

 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND HOW IT APPLIES TO LEASE AGREEMENTS It can often be the case that whilst a tenant is leasing a property from the owner, the property is subsequently sold to a third party.  The case of Venter and Another v Els and Another (2024) dealt with this situation and a dispute which arose when the owners attempted to cancel the lease agreement subsequent to the sale of the property.  The case further provides an interesting discussion around section 14(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and its applicability to once off lease agreements.

The Original Article can be Viewed here: →  The Consumer Protection Act and how it applies to lease agreements (bizcommunity.com)

The Judgement can be Viewed here: →  Venter and Another v Els and Another (3639/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 83; 2024 (4) SA 305 (WCC) (18 March 2024) (saflii.org)

HOLDER OF RIGHT OF EXTENSION IN A SECTIONAL TITLE SCHEME: WHEN DOES LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE CONTRIBUTION ARISE?   Club Kerkira (Pty) Limited v Trustees of Club Kerkira Body Corporate and Others (D11451/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 40 (4 June 2024)

Club Kerkira (Pty) Limited (‘the developer’) owned a property in Palm Beach, KwaZulu-Natal and, in 1992, opened a sectional title scheme thereon. The scheme is known as Club Kerkira.

The estate is set on 44 hectares of land and the sectional title plan provided for 101 units to be developed in four phases.  Since registration of the plan and opening the scheme (in 1992) sixteen units have been built and transferred to owners.

The developer installed the majority of the services and roads in the estate, completed a tennis court, two swimming pools with amenities, an administration office, a guardhouse, a workshop, a manager’s dwelling, and a club house during the first phase. Thus, the estate was prepared for the inhabitants of 101 units.

Upon the opening of the sectional title register, the developer reserved the rights for itself to develop the balance of the 101 units in future (in what was anticipated to occur in phases 2, 3 and 4 respectively).  The rights were reserved by virtue of the provisions of section 25 of the Sectional Titles Act of 1986 (the ‘section 25 right’ or ‘right to extend’).  The anticipated further development did not take place. Thus, since the scheme’s inception, the body corporate of Club Kerkira has had to levy contributions for the maintenance and upkeep of the large estate (designed to accommodate and benefit 101 sectional title owners and for which the maintenance would be funded by them) from the 16 owners.  It was therefore particularly important for it to collect contributions from the holder of the section 25 right, as far as the law provides for…

The Judgement can be Viewed here: →  Club Kerkira (Pty) Limited v Trustees of Club Kerkira Body Corporate and Others (D11451/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 40 (4 June 2024) (saflii.org)

HARASSMENT IN A COMMUNITY SCHEME:    Must recourse be sought under the Harassment Act or the CSOS Act?
In a May 2024 judgment (MM v Kiewiet ZAGPPHC 411 (3 May 2024)  the Gauteng High Court was tasked with making a decision as to whether an interim protection order, issued under the Harassment Act, should be made final or not. The interim order was previously granted in favour of MM, prohibiting Kiewiet from verbally and physically abusing her and from threatening and harassing her.

At the hearing, Kiewiet’s legal team raised a point in limine: It was argued that since the conduct complained of occurred in the community scheme where both parties are resident, it was inappropriate to seek an order under the Harassment Act and that the provisions of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act were applicable.

The Magistrates’ Court agreed with Kiewiet’s assertion in his point in limine, and directed that the matter be referred for adjudication under the Community Schemes Ombud Services Act, Act 9 of 2011. MM appealed to the High Court against this finding.

The Judgement can be Viewed here: →  https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2024/411.html

A POTENTIAL ‘RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY’ AFTER MAKING A VALID OFFER,  CAN BE PROTECTED BY WAY OF AN INTERDICT   Vumazonke and Another v Rheeder and Others (835/2024) [2024] ZAECELLC 35 (16 July 2024)

This judgment deals with a battle between two would-be property purchasers. The first offer was subject to a suspensive condition and also contained a 72-hour clause. It provided that, should the seller receive a second, unconditional offer before the suspensive condition in the first offer was met, the seller may accept that second offer unless the first offeror could make its offer unconditional within 72 hours. When the second, unconditional offer came in, the mechanisms of the 72-hour clause commenced. However, the first offeror stuck her heels in and advised the seller that her offer can be regarded as unconditional. This communication was not honest because the first offeror had, at the time, not yet received bond approval. The court granted an interim interdict in favour of the second offeror prohibiting transfer to the first offeror, stating that it had the right to protect its potential ‘right to acquire property’ flowing from the offer submitted.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Vumazonke and Another v Rheeder and Others (835/2024) [2024] ZAECELLC 35 (16 July 2024) (saflii.org)

IS WAIVER OF A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT PROHIBITED BY A NON-VARIATION CLAUSE? Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation of Southern Africa (330/2023) [2024] ZASCA 107 (3 July 2024)

In this matter, the Supreme Court of Appeal considered whether a lender-benefactor’s right to waive its claim to repayment of a loan is trumped by a non-variation clause in the loan agreement. The related enquiry – whether abandonment of the right to claim payment is akin to a variation of the terms of the loan and within the reach of a non-variation clause – was also explored. Balancing the rules of interpretation of agreements in order to reach answers, the court highlighted instances when extraneous evidence may be used to give context to the terms of a contract, despite our law’s rule that a written document must be respected as constituting the parties’ agreement on the terms of their engagement.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Phoenix Salt Industries (Pty) Ltd v The Lubavitch Foundation of Southern Africa (330/2023) [2024] ZASCA 107 (3 July 2024) (saflii.org)

THREE AFFIDAVITS CAN ESTABLISH A VALID INSTALLMENT SALE, EVEN WITHOUT A RECORDAL OF THE TERMS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 6 OF THE ALIENATION OF LAND ACT:    Mohlala v Mashamaite and Others (2022/059691) [2024] ZAGPJHC 607 (4 July 2024)   Applying the well-known principles for the conclusion of a valid agreement of sale of land, the court concluded that an installment sale agreement had been established by virtue of three affidavits and an installment payment annexure signed by both parties. The absence of certain details required by section 6 of the Alienation of Land Act did not invalidate the agreement, as those terms were deemed non-essential and non-material. Nevertheless, the purchaser still faced challenges in claiming ownership of the property, as the judgment and summary explain.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Mohlala v Mashamaite and Others (2022/059691) [2024] ZAGPJHC 607 (4 July 2024) (saflii.org)

BANK’S PRE-AGREEMENT STATEMENT AND QUOTATION CONSTITUTES LOAN APPROVAL ‘IN PRINCIPLE’   Setso Property Fund (Pty) Ltd v Manama (2023/0027101) [2024] ZAGPJHC 592 (21 June 2024)

In this rare instance where a seller chose to enforce an agreement against a defaulting purchaser, the seller’s claim for specific performance was challenged by the buyer. The buyer argued that the bank’s Pre-Agreement Statement and Quotation did not constitute approval ‘in principle,’ as stipulated in their agreement.

The court noted that the language used by the bank in its documents did indeed constitute such approval. Furthermore, the court noted that the 5-day period for acceptance pertained only to the quotation. The pre-agreement thus remained in place as fulfillment of the suspensive condition.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Setso Property Fund (Pty) Ltd v Manama (2023/0027101) [2024] ZAGPJHC 592 (21 June 2024) (saflii.org)

SURETYSHIPS DO COME BACK AND HAUNT YOU   Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Van Staden and  Another (10690/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 142 (28 May 2024)   In this judgment, the court was asked to make a finding on some tricky arguments. First, if a loan agreement was entered into before the coming into operation of the National Credit Act but the suretyship in respect of the borrower’s obligations signed thereafter, does the Act apply to the suretyship? Secondly, if a debtor’s home was sold in execution after default judgment, does the remaining debt which was not recovered from the proceeds become a ‘normal’ debt that prescribes after 3 years? The answer to both questions is ‘no’. The judgment and summary below highlight the reasoning of the court.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Van Staden and Another (10690/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 142 (28 May 2024) (saflii.org)

IF THERE IS NO PRIOR AGREEMENT ON THE COMMISSION AMOUNT, IS IT THEN NOT PAYABLE?   Golden Rewards 120 CC t/a Remax Marine v M3 Holdings (Pty) Ltd (D42/2019) [2024] ZAKZDHC 22 (10 May 2024)

This judgment speaks volumes about commonplace challenges that estate agents face daily. In this case, in exercising a verbal (and later written) mandate to find a tenant for a five-year period for a commercial property, the agent had introduced a tenant to the landlord, facilitated various amendments to the terms of the lease, and caused the tenant to submit a draft lease for signature by the landlord.

The landlord accepted the terms and proceeded to arrange signature of a lease agreement, excluding the agent. The agent’s subsequent enquiry about payment of commission was dismissed, with the landlord retorting that no commission was payable as both the oral and written mandate were concluded on the basis that commission was still to be agreed upon, which agreement never occurred.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Golden Rewards 120 CC t/a Remax Marine v M3 Holdingd (Pty) Ltd (D42/2019) [2024] ZAKZDHC 22 (10 May 2024) (saflii.org)

RELIABILITY OF PROPERTY VALUATIONS WHEN EXECUTION IS SOUGHT  SB Guarantee Company (Pty) Ltd v De Sousa (2023/035447) [2024] ZAGPJHC 459 (6 May 2024)   When a financial institution makes application to court to declare a person’s home specially executable, submission of a reliable property valuation is crucially important. It enables the court to determine whether a reserve price should be set and, if so, the amount thereof. Given that a debtor in these circumstances is unlikely to have funds to procure their own valuation, they must also be able to rely on the expert valuation.

In these three matters, the court refused to use the professional valuations provided by widely-used valuation companies after establishing that the methods employed in providing professional valuations on affidavit rendered these affidavits unreliable. Without a dependable valuation, the court could not make a finding.

It is an exceptionally important judgment and likely to be noted by all courts across the country.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  SB Guarantee Company (Pty) Ltd v De Sousa (2023/035447) [2024] ZAGPJHC 459 (6 May 2024) (saflii.org)

LEARN FROM THE PITFALLS ARISING FROM ORAL MANDATES  Gilfillan v Renico Construction (Pty) Ltd (36734/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 241 (11 March 2024)

Nowadays, with so much business activity conducted digitally, it comes almost as a surprise to find that persons in business transactions do not record the details of their oral engagements via, at least, an email or Whatsapp. This matter illustrates the pitfalls that can arise from entering into oral mandates. The estate agent, mandated by the purchaser, was successful in bringing a seller and purchaser together and was mentioned in the sale agreement as the effective cause of the sale. However, when the purchaser elected to cancel the sale, it argued that it was not liable for commission. The agent, on the other hand, contended that their oral agreement did not make the payment of commission dependent on transfer. Absent a recordal of the terms of their engagement, it was necessary to approach a court for a finding, many months and extensive legal fees later.

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Gilfillan v Renico Construction (Pty) Ltd (36734/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 241 (11 March 2024) (saflii.org)

WILFUL IGNORANCE LANDS PROPERTY SELLERS WITH LIABILITY FOR DAMP DAMAGES:  Gortzen and Another v Moolman (A3022-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1780 (28 February 2024)

Getting the home showroom ready, remaining wilfully ignorant of the obvious, and allowing reckless half-truths to prevail, all combined in this matter to render the sellers of a home liable to the purchaser for damages resulting from damp. This in the context of sellers who were divorced: the ex-husband having long vacated the marital home, left the ex-wife to deal with the agent and purchaser in the time leading up to the sale. As co-owner, however, the ex-husband had also completed the Property Condition Report. He was thus held jointly liable with his ex-spouse, having not mentioned the damp which, he argued, was patent (but having shared the costs of the painters who were tasked to “make the house look pretty” for purposes of putting it on the market)

The Judgement can be Viewed here:  →  Gortzen and Another v Moolman (A3022-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1780 (28 February 2024) (saflii.org)

Practicing without a Valid Fidelity Fund Certificate [FFC] and Operating under a Company and/or Closed Corporation [CC]   Tria Real Estate (Pty) Ltd t/a Pam Golding Bloemfontein v Labuschagne and Another (5583/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 198 (6 December 2018)

The Judgement can be Viewed   →  Tria Real Estate (Pty) Ltd t/a Pam Golding Bloemfontein v Labuschagne and Another (5583/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 198 (6 December 2018) (saflii.org)