Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes

Sasfin and Beukes entered into a reciprocal contract. Sasfin sued Beukes for breach of contract. Beukes raised the exceptio non adimpleti contractus (the defence that the plaintiff has not performed its own obligations), arguing that Sasfin had also not performed and therefore could not claim performance from him.

• Breach of contract
• Exceptio non adimpleti contractus
• Reciprocal obligations
• Suspensive condition

Sasfin's claim was dismissed. Beukes was entitled to suspend his performance until Sasfin performed its own obligations.

In a reciprocal contract, neither party can claim performance from the other unless they have performed or tendered performance of their own obligations. This principle is embodied in the exceptio non adimpleti contractus. The defence is available when: (1) the obligations are reciprocal (each party's obligation is the causa for the other's); (2) the obligations are due simultaneously; (3) the plaintiff has not performed or tendered performance. The defence allows the defendant to suspend their own performance until the plaintiff performs.

Data not available for this record

This is the leading case on the exceptio non adimpleti contractus in South African contract law. It clarified when parties can suspend performance in reciprocal contracts and established the requirements for raising the defence. The case is essential for understanding remedies for breach of contract and the principle of reciprocity in contractual obligations.