The appellant, Anthony John Kriel, hired his aircraft to the respondent, Hendrik Beukes, at an agreed hourly rate for training purposes. The respondent used the aircraft for 17.3 hours between 7 and 25 May 1998. At the time, the aircraft was still registered in the name of previous owners (Messrs Fowles) and not in the appellant’s name, despite the appellant having been in possession of it for over a year. In terms of aviation regulations issued under the Aviation Act 74 of 1962, the certificate of registration had expired, rendering use of the aircraft illegal. The appellant sued in the magistrate’s court for payment of hire charges. The respondent defended the claim and counterclaimed for damages, alleging that the appellant breached an agreement allowing him to use the aircraft until he obtained a commercial pilot’s licence. The magistrate ruled in favour of the appellant and dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal, the Eastern Cape Local Division overturned the decision, dismissing the appellant’s claim and upholding the counterclaim. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal against the dismissal of the appellant’s claim was dismissed. The appeal against the upholding of the respondent’s counterclaim was upheld. The final substituted order dismissed both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s counterclaim. No order as to costs was made in respect of the appeal, the appeal to the court a quo, or the magistrate’s court proceedings.
The case affirms the principle that South African courts will not enforce contractual claims arising from conduct that is illegal under statutory regulatory regimes, specifically in the context of aviation law. It illustrates the strict application of illegality to claims for contractual payment and clarifies that the par delictum rule does not assist a party seeking payment for illegal performance.