Exdev (Pty) Ltd and Another v Pekudei Investments (Pty) Ltd

The respondent sold certain sectional title units and parking bays to the first appellant. In the same written agreement, the first appellant undertook to sell the respondent an office unit of 260 m² with eight parking bays in a new building to be developed on the property, at the same price, and granted an option to purchase an additional 140 m² at market value. The seller retained discretion to determine the precise shape and location of the 260 m² unit in the new building. Rezoning was obtained, but the new building was not delivered as envisaged. The respondent sued for damages following alleged repudiation. The appellants pleaded that the sale was void for vagueness and for non-compliance with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The respondent excepted to this defence, and the exception was upheld in the High Court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The order of the High Court was amended to uphold the exception with costs and to strike out the portions of the plea alleging that the sale was unenforceable.

The case reaffirms the approach to section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act, confirming that a sale of immovable property is not invalid merely because the precise shape or location of the property is left to be determined by one party, provided the property is objectively identifiable from the contract. It also clarifies the distinction between divisible contracts and multiple independent agreements contained in a single document.