Former Way Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd t/a Premier Service Station and Another v Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels

The respondent owned premises on which the first appellant operated a Caltex fuel service station under a franchise agreement. A dispute arose as to whether the franchise agreement had terminated at the end of 2017 or had been renewed. Pending litigation concerning eviction and enforcement of the alleged renewed franchise agreement, the parties agreed to a consent order made an order of court on 22 January 2018. The consent order required the parties to conduct themselves as if the franchise agreement remained in force, including an obligation on the first appellant to source all petroleum products from the respondent. For approximately 18 months the appellants complied. In July 2019, alleging overpricing, the first appellant deliberately began sourcing fuel from third-party suppliers while continuing to operate from the respondent’s premises and under the Caltex brand. The respondent launched urgent contempt proceedings. The High Court declared the first appellant in contempt and sentenced the second appellant, as controlling mind, to 30 days’ imprisonment wholly suspended. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The finding of contempt and the suspended committal order against the second appellant remained in force.

The case reinforces the binding nature of consent orders and confirms that such orders create enforceable, self-standing obligations regardless of disputes about underlying contractual terms. It underscores the strict approach South African courts adopt toward compliance with court orders and reaffirms the constitutional importance of contempt proceedings in upholding the rule of law and judicial authority.