Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (Pty) Ltd

The University of Johannesburg (UJ), owner of property in Auckland Park, leased it long-term to Auckland Park Theological Seminary (ATS) under a notarial lease registered in 1996. In 2011, ATS purported to cede its rights under the lease to Wamjay Holding Investments (Pty) Ltd for R6.5 million without UJ’s knowledge or consent. UJ regarded the lease rights as personal and non-cedable, treated the cession as a repudiation, and cancelled the lease in October 2012. Litigation followed, culminating in a Constitutional Court judgment in June 2021 confirming that the lease rights were personal and the cession invalid. After this judgment, Wamjay sued ATS in the High Court for repayment of the R6.5 million on the basis of unjustified enrichment. The High Court upheld Wamjay’s claim. ATS appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, contending that Wamjay’s enrichment claim had prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing Wamjay’s application with costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed.

The judgment reinforces established South African prescription jurisprudence that knowledge of material facts, not legal certainty or judicial confirmation, triggers the running of prescription under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. It clarifies that the limited exception recognised in Le Roux concerning legal conclusions applies only to professional negligence claims against legal practitioners and should not be extended to other contexts. The case provides important guidance on enrichment claims arising from invalid contracts and the timing of prescription.