Kgopana v Matlala

The appellant, Mr Kgopana, won approximately R20.8 million in the National Lottery in July 2015. He and the respondent, Ms Matlala, had previously been in a relationship and shared a minor child, for whom the appellant paid maintenance. In January 2016, after the respondent confronted him about having won the lottery, the appellant sent her a WhatsApp message stating that if he got R20 million he could give each of his children R1 million. The respondent later sued him for R900 000, alleging that the message constituted an offer to pay R1 million for the benefit of the child, which she claimed to have accepted. The High Court upheld her claim, finding that a binding contract had been formed. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the respondent’s claim. No order as to costs was made.

The case is significant for clarifying how South African courts assess contractual intent in electronic communications such as WhatsApp messages. It reinforces the requirement of animus contrahendi and confirms that hypothetical or informal statements, even concerning large sums of money, do not necessarily constitute enforceable offers. It also limits the application of the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent where the objective meaning of the communication does not support contractual intention.