Sewpersadh v Dookie

The appellants, a married couple, were the registered owners of immovable property in Isipingo, KwaZulu-Natal. On 7 October 2003 they concluded a written agreement of sale with the respondent, who was given occupation immediately. The purchase price of R500 000 was payable within 24 months through an elaborate scheme whereby the respondent would settle the appellants’ municipal and bank debts in monthly instalments. The respondent failed to pay the full purchase price within the agreed period. After issuing a written notice to remedy the breach, the appellants cancelled the agreement on 5 April 2006 and sought an order declaring the cancellation valid and evicting the respondent. Despite cancellation, the respondent made further payments. The High Court held that although the agreement had been validly cancelled, the parties’ conduct revived it. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order declaring the agreement of sale cancelled, directing the respondent to vacate the property forthwith, authorising eviction by the sheriff if necessary, and ordering the respondent to pay costs.

The case clarifies that a validly cancelled contract of sale of land cannot be revived by equivocal conduct alone. Revival requires clear consensus between all contracting parties. The judgment reinforces certainty in contractual cancellation and limits reliance on post-cancellation conduct to defeat a valid termination.