The appellant (tenant) and respondent (landlord) concluded a written lease agreement for a townhouse at a monthly rental of R3 500 payable in advance on the first day of each month. The tenant persistently failed to pay rent timeously. When the January 2000 rent was still unpaid at the end of that month, the landlord cancelled the lease in terms of the contract and gave the tenant 14 days to vacate. The tenant resisted eviction, alleging a later oral agreement allowing flexible payment during the month, estoppel based on the landlord’s conduct, a right to withhold rent for repair costs, and later rectification of the written contract. She also relied on section 26(3) of the Constitution. The written lease contained a non-variation clause (entrenchment clause) requiring all amendments to be in writing and signed by both parties. The High Court granted an eviction order, and the tenant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was dismissed. The eviction order granted by the High Court stood.
This is a leading authority in South African contract law reaffirming the Shifren principle and clarifying that bona fides does not constitute an independent ground to refuse enforcement of contractual terms. The case strongly endorses pacta sunt servanda and legal certainty, limiting judicial discretion based on fairness. It has had enduring influence on debates about good faith, equity, and constitutional values in contract law.