Is it permissible for parties to contractually agree not to institute legal action against each other?
The Supreme Court of Appeal recently made a judgment in the Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and another v Capitec Bank Holdings Limited on whether pactum de non petendo in anticipando (a contractual undertaking not to institute any legal action) was applicable in our law.
A pactum de non petendo in anticipando is a contractual principle in terms of which parties conclude an agreement or undertaking not to institute an action against each other.
In 2006 Capitec Bank Holdings Limited (Pty) Ltd “Capitec” concluded a subscription of shares and shareholders agreement with Carol Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd “Carol”.
Carol instituted action against Capitec, claiming that Capitec’s prevention of the sale of the shares by Coral led to them having a financial loss of R 1,225 billion.
Capitec asserted that the legal action should be withdrawn because Carol had agreed in a consent agreement not to institute legal proceedings against Capitec.
In interpreting the clauses of a contract, the court has utilised an objective process of attributing meaning to the words used in the document. In addition, the Court considered the context of the document as a whole also having regard to the apparent purpose of the words.
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned contractual interpretation framework the Court found that Carol clearly breached the contractual undertaking not to sue. A pactum is an agreement like any other and gives rise to rights and correlative duties.
In deciding whether the clause was against public policy or not the court made reference to the case of Beadica 231 CC and others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and others in which it was held that public policy is the basis on which courts may decline to enforce contractual terms where the terms themselves or its enforcement would be contrary to public policy. In the matter under consideration the court found that the pactum was consistent with public policy.
Therefore, it is clear that agreements to not litigate are not necessarily unreasonable, subject to the aforementioned framework of consideration and alignment with public policy. The position correlates with the contractual freedom provide by the law of contract in South Africa.
Article by Pieter Walters
Senior Associate at Law Firm, Barnard
About Barnard
https://barnardinc.co.za/
Barnard is a leading and full-service commercial law firm based in Pretoria, South Africa. We provide a comprehensive range of legal services, including corporate and commercial law, property law, commercial litigation, mediation, insurance, wealth protection and family law.
Voted the 2022 Most Innovative Law Firm in Africa by Law.com (ALA) we constantly work to achieve the best results for our clients. On the international stage, Barnard is the exclusive southern Africa member of the International Commercial Law Alliance (ICLA) and our legal expertise is recognised by the leading global peer-review guide, Best Lawyers.
Our attorneys and professional consultants advise listed and private companies, individuals, and local and foreign organisations across South Africa and internationally.
266 Bronkhorst Street, Nieuw Muckleneuk, Pretoria, South Africa
Tel. +27 12 001 2739
Media Queries to Mark Beckman | mark@barnardinc.co.za
RMI4law members enjoy the benefit of legal advice from an attorney 24 hours a day. If you wish to join RMI4law, call 0861 668 677.
Legalex (Pty) Ltd, registration number 2003/003715/07, is an authorized Financial Services Provider (FSP 5277) and underwritten by Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited (FSP 26/10/75).