AGREEMENT DEEMING THAT SUSPENSIVE CONDITION HAS BEEN MET, AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR PERFORMANCE, TESTED
Vantage Goldfields SA (Pty) Ltd v Siyakhula Sonke Empowerment Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another (853/2023) [2025] ZASCA 1 (9 January 2025)
In this judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal dealt with the question of whether an agreement, which otherwise would have lapsed due to the non-fulfilment of certain suspensive conditions, was revived by subsequent addendum agreements in which the parties agreed that it would be deemed that all the conditions were met timeously. The outcome illustrates, yet again, how treacherous suspensive conditions can be.
The judgment can be viewed here
Summary of the Judgment
FAIR DIVISION OF PROCEEDS ON TERMINATION OF CO-OWNERSHIP: LONG AFTER DIVORCE, SPOUSE ARGUES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS EXCEEDED THOSE OF EX-SPOUSE
K.A v A.E and Another (15857/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 392 (27 November 2024)
In our law, persons who co-own immovable property may apply to court for an order terminating co-ownership. Where the co-ownership is a result of an underlying legal relationship between the parties (such as an extant or previous marriage), the relationship between them goes beyond their co-ownership of the property. In such an instance, different considerations for a fair division may arise. The judgment illustrates our courts’ approach to ‘free’ as opposed to ‘bound’ co-ownership when parties seek to terminate the co-ownership years after the co-owners had divorced.
