Van Niekerk v Favel

In November 2000 the respondents sold residential immovable property to the appellants under a written instalment sale agreement governed by the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The appellants took occupation and paid the purchase price in instalments. In January 2005 the respondents’ attorney sent a registered letter alleging various breaches and calling on the appellants to remedy them within 30 days, with reference only to clause 26 of the contract. In February 2005 a second letter purported to cancel the contract and claim forfeiture of payments made. The respondents then applied for eviction in the magistrates’ court, which was granted. Appeals to the High Court failed. The appellants appealed further to the Supreme Court of Appeal, contending that the initial notice did not comply with section 19(2)(c) of the Alienation of Land Act.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The orders of the High Court and the magistrates’ court were set aside, and the eviction application was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies and strengthens the consumer-protective interpretation of section 19 of the Alienation of Land Act. It confirms that sellers must clearly inform purchasers, in the statutory notice itself, of the specific statutory remedies contemplated if the breach is not remedied, and that a vague or purely contractual reference is insufficient. The judgment reinforces the approach in Merry Hill v Engelbrecht and emphasises the vulnerability of instalment purchasers of residential property.