REPUDIAION MUST LEAVE NO DOUBT
Pretorius v Bedwell (659/2020) [2022] ZASCA 4 (11 January 2022)
When the relationship between contracting parties sour, there is often a pointing of fingers as to which one was the cause of the ultimate failure of the agreement. It is important to identify the ‘guilty’ one, because the innocent party then has certain rights. In this matter, a purchaser reneged on an agreement with the seller to retransfer the property to him (the erstwhile seller), and sold the property to a third party. As a lot of time had passed since, questions of prescription arose, with one party claiming that his actions showed that he had repudiated the agreement and that, as more than three years had elapsed, the claim had prescribed. The court here clarified what type of conduct would be necessary to prove that there indeed was repudiation.
The Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
PRIVACY, FACEBOOK AND YOUR INFO IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Smuts and Another v Botha (887/2020) [2022] ZASCA 3 (10 January 2022)
When taking part in a cycling event that traversed some farms, a cyclist took photos of a porcupine and baboon that had apparently died because they were left in cages without water. An animal activist became involved and posted the pictures on Facebook, together with details of the owner and the farm location. Unsurprisingly this caused an outcry and the farm owner approached the courts for protection of his rights to privacy, arguing that it was unnecessary to identify him in person. The matter ended in the Supreme Court of Appeal which confirmed that, on the specific facts of this matter, the right to freedom of expression and the public interest would trump the farmer’s rights. It was relevant that the farmer’s information that appeared in the post was in fact already in the public domain. The judgment explains how our law deals with claims that result from the tension between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.
