Judicature: Claims for restitution arising from the non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions in contracts

• Pages: 823-843
• Author: O’Brien, P.
• Citation: 2021 TSAR 823
• Date: 20 September 2021
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2021/i4a8
• Published date: 20 September 2021

https://doi.org /10.47348/ TSAR /2021/i4a 8

CLAIMS FOR RE STITUTION AR ISING FROM NON-FULFIL MENT OF SUSPENSIVE CON DITIONS 823

[ISSN 0257 – 7747] TSAR 2021 . 4

CLAIMS FOR RESTITUTION ARISING FROM THE NON-

FULFILMENT OF SUSPENSIVE CONDITIONS IN CONTRACTS

Timasani (Pty) Ltd (in business re scue) v Afrimat Iron Ore (Pty) Ltd (91/2020) 2021

ZASCA 43 (13 Apr 2021)

SAMEVATTING

EISE VIR RESTITUSIE WAT SPRUIT UIT DIE NIEVERVULLING VAN OPSKORTENDE

VOORWAARDES IN KONTRAKTE

Die verbinteni sregtelike aspek wa t in hierdie saak te r sprake gekom het, kon volgens geyk te regsbeginsels

opgelos word. Die teru gbetaling van ’n dep osito en die oorbet aling van opgeloopte r ente by die nie-

vervull ing van opskortende voor waardes in ’n kontrak wa s ter sprake. Die voorne mende koper (Afrimat)

het die deposito i n ’n spesiale beleggingsrekening v an die voornemende verkoper ( Timasani) by ’n bank

inbetaal me t die ooreenkoms d at die geld namens Afrimat geho u sou word en dat die opgeloopte r ente

Afrimat s ou toekom. By die niever vulling va n die voorwaard es het die sakeredd ingsprak tisyn van

Timasani geweie r om die deposito terug te bet aal aan Afrimat . Die gronde vir die weiering he t gespruit

uit ’n dispuut oor die kwa ntum van die afslaerskomm issie waarvoor Afrim at aanspreeklikh eid aanvaar

het. Die hof van eerst e instansie het Timasa ni gelas om eerstens die de posito terug te beta al aan Afrimat

en tweedens die o pgeloopte re nte aan dit oor te bet aal. D ie hoogste hof van a ppèl het ’n appèl van

die hand gewys en d ie hof van eerste in stansie se bevi nding gesteun d at die regsgeding n ie deur die

statutêre m oratorium op regsgedinge te en maatskappye in sakere dding gestuit word nie. Laasge noemde

kwessie met gepaa rdgaande prose durele kwessies va l buite die bestek va n hierdie besprek ing. Wat

die verbinteni sregtelike asp ek betref, is da ar ’n groot waarsk ynlikh eid dat die ware gron dslag van die

uitspraa k eenvoudig ’n eis was vir nakom ing van die kontr ak dat die deposito e n opgeloopte rente by

die nieverv ulling van die voor waardes te rug- en oorbet aal moes word aan Af rimat. Die hoog ste hof

van appèl het egter sky nbaar die eis op ’n verryki ngsgrondslag toeges taan. In h ierdie verband word die

2021 TSAR 823

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

https://doi.org /10.47348/ TSAR /2021/i4a 8

TSAR 2021 . 4 [ISS N 0257 – 7747]

824 O’BRIE N

stelling onder a ndere in die uits praak gemaa k dat die kontrak t erugwerken d nietig geword het by die

nie-vervu lling van die opskort ende voorwaardes. Da ar word aan die hand gedoe n dat dit ’n obiter dictum

was wat heeltemal on nodig was vir ’n bevinding da t ’n verryk ingsvordering beski kbaar was. Ten spyte

van gemeenreg telike gesag vir so ’n verstek reël, word daardie reël va ndag in regstelsels gebasee r op die

Romeinse reg verwerp op die basis dat dit ’n ksie is en ’n foutiewe en onlogiese vertolk ing van Romeinse

tekste ver teenwoordig. So ’n k sie het onverwagt e en ongewenste gevolge vi r derde partye wa t hangende

vervull ing van opskortende voor waardes regte ver kry wat op die kontra k berus. Dit is derhalwe n ie meer

die verstekgevolg van d ie nievervul ling van opskort ende voorwaar des in verwante r egstelsels nie. Dit

is ook moeilik om i n te sien hoe, in die afwesigheid va n ’n kontrak en sonder oorwegi ng van afwykende

uitsprake, d ie hof die eis vir oorbetali ng van opgeloopte rente op ’n verr ykingsgrondslag kon to estaan.

1 Background and facts

This case note draws at tention to only a few sentences in the judgment under

discussion. In line with the modern approach to the i nterpretation of contracts, it

nevertheless remains ne cessary to summarise t he background in some detail.

The contract in question was concluded between Afr imat and a business rescue

practitioner (practitioner) acting in a representative capacity during the business

rescue proceedings of a compa ny (Timasani). Before its demise, Timasani conduct ed

iron and manganese mining on a farm it owned i n Kuruman. The creditors of

Timasani had approved the conclusion of a contr act between Afrimat and Timasa ni

aimed at the sale of Timasani’s assets to Afr imat. The base price was R17 million

excluding value-added tax, transfer duty, transfer costs and auctioneer’s commission

(the latter as dened in the c ontract).

The contract contained t wo suspensive conditions. The rst suspe nsive condition

was that Afr imat had to satisf y itself in respect of legal, nancial and tech nical

issues by way of a due diligence investigation pertaining to the assets it sought to

acquire. Thereafter, nal agreements ha d to be concluded (the second suspensive

condition). Following the due diligence investigations, Afrimat submitted draf t nal

agreements to the practitioner. The overall nancial obligations of Afri mat in terms

of the dr aft nal agreements were identical to those contained in the then existing

contract. The base cost of R17 million was split into R4 million for the immovable

property and R13 mill ion for the movable property. There is nothing in the judgment

that suggests that th is was claimed to be an improper monetary allocation of the

base cost to the movable and immovable assets respectively. The practitioner took

the view t hat the nal ag reements should be ame nded to render Af rimat liable for

the auctioneer’s commission on the full pu rchase price, rather than on the purchase

price of the immovable propert y only. In addition, the practitioner claimed that

Afrimat had to accept liability for the disbu rsements of the auctioneers in the form

of advertising costs, social me dia costs and security expenses.

Although the supreme court of appeal addressed all the relevant factual issues,

it is extremely dif cult to c onnect the dots without also reading the judgment of

the court of rst i nstance and the founding afdavit, both of which were gr aciously

made available to the writer by A frimat’s attorneys. It is not automatic for purchaser s

to pay agent’s commission; normally one expects this to be a matter between a seller

and the agent. The offer that was published on the auctioneer’s website required

the successful purchaser to pay commission in add ition to the purchase price. The

commission was to be calculated on the purchase price of the immovable property

of the company only. Afrimat clearly had no hand i n drafting the clause relating to

commission. The published offer also provided for the s ale of the movable assets of

the company, being mostly mining equipment and the mineral rights in the farm,

which was owned by a third par ty (Soliter).

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd