Masstores (Pty) Limited v Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Limited

Hyprop, owner of a shopping centre, concluded separate lease agreements with Masstores and Pick n Pay. Pick n Pay’s lease granted it contractual exclusivity to operate as a supermarket in the centre, while Masstores’ lease restricted it from trading as a general food supermarket. Despite this, Masstores began operating as a supermarket. Pick n Pay did not sue Hyprop for breach of contract but instead sought a final interdict directly against Masstores, alleging that Masstores unlawfully interfered with Pick n Pay’s contractual relations with Hyprop by breaching its own lease and undermining Pick n Pay’s exclusivity rights.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal succeeded. The orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal were set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Pick n Pay’s application with costs. Pick n Pay was ordered to pay the costs in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The case clarifies the limits of the delict of unlawful interference with contractual relations in South African law. It confirms that deprivation of a contractual benefit, without inducement or usurpation, is not prima facie wrongful and that wrongfulness must be positively established. The judgment reinforces the distinction between contractual rights enforceable inter partes and delictual liability of third parties, and cautions against extending delictual liability in a manner that unduly restricts lawful competition.