Transnet and Reit were parties to five long-term notarial leases concluded in 1960 for properties in the Durban port (Maydon Wharf), terminating in 2029. The leases provided for rental calculated as a fixed percentage of the market value of bare land (excluding improvements), to be determined every five years. In 2008, Transnet invoked section 67(1)(b) of the National Ports Act 12 of 2005, asserting that the rentals were unreasonably low and prejudicial to port operations. After negotiations, parties signed "Declarations of Rental" in 2009, agreeing to increased rentals based on market-related rates (R15 per square metre per month, escalating at 10% annually) for the period 1 June 2009 to 31 May 2014. Reit signed these declarations subject to conditions, including that Transnet would not invoke s 67 again and that remaining lease terms would stay unchanged unless agreed in writing. For the next five-year period (2014-2019), Transnet proposed R17 per square metre based on market-related rental (as determined by its valuer, Mr Moyo). Reit objected and obtained its own valuation from JVR, offering R11 per square metre. Unable to agree, parties appointed Mr Seota (via SACPVP) as umpire to determine which valuation was "most appropriate." Mr Seota endorsed Mr Moyo's valuation. Reit refused to accept this determination and launched review proceedings, arguing Mr Seota should have valued bare land as per the original 1960 leases, not determined market-related rental.
The appeal was upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the High Court was set aside. In its place, the Court ordered: "The application for review is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel."
The binding legal principles established are: (1) An expert valuer's determination, where parties agree it shall be final and binding, cannot be reviewed by courts unless it is shown the expert acted dishonestly, in bad faith, or reached a manifestly unjust result. An expert's mandate derives from the parties' instructions, not necessarily from underlying contracts. (2) Where parties jointly instruct an expert with specific terms of reference, the expert must discharge that mandate; courts will not set aside the determination merely because it differs from provisions in underlying contracts of which the expert was unaware. (3) Section 67(1)(b) of the National Ports Act permits a ports authority to require renegotiation of long-term leases with unreasonably low rentals that prejudice port operations; successful renegotiation results in binding variation. (4) Written variations of contracts containing non-variation clauses must be interpreted in context, considering the factual matrix, commercial purpose, and sensible business interpretation. Where parties execute written declarations following renegotiations, these may constitute effective variations if they comply with non-variation clause requirements. (5) The proper interpretation of contractual variations requires consideration of: the language used, the context (including background negotiations and circumstances), the purpose, and what is commercially sensible and businesslike. Courts must not substitute their view of what is reasonable for what parties actually agreed.
The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) It endorsed the approach in S v Jordan that courts should decide all substantive issues raised, not just the dispositive one, to avoid endless future disputes. (2) It noted that widely divergent valuations by honest experts are common and do not necessarily indicate error (citing Abrams v Allie). (3) It observed that non-variation clauses like clause 18, which state amendments will not be "recognised" or "binding" on one party, are inserted for that party's benefit and protect against spurious defenses, but do not prevent that party from asserting variations that impose obligations on the other party. (4) The Court commented that interpreting the 2009 declarations as applying only to the 2009-2014 period would produce an absurd result (rental dropping from R450,000 to R45,000 per month) and undermine the legislative purpose of s 67 of the National Ports Act. (5) It noted the "without prejudice" privilege protecting settlement negotiations falls away once negotiations succeed, allowing the settlement communications to be disclosed. (6) The Court emphasized that clause 18's protective purpose was to enable Transnet to determine its rights by reference to documents in its possession, particularly important for large entities with multiple divisions and employees.
This case is significant in South African contract and administrative law for: (1) Clarifying the limited grounds on which expert valuers' determinations can be reviewed—courts will not interfere unless bad faith, dishonesty, or manifest injustice is shown. (2) Establishing that an expert's mandate derives from the parties' instructions, not necessarily from underlying contracts of which the expert may be unaware. (3) Interpreting section 67 of the National Ports Act as a mechanism enabling ports authorities to renegotiate unreasonably low rentals in long-term leases prejudicial to port operations. (4) Demonstrating the application of modern principles of contractual interpretation (Endumeni approach) requiring courts to consider context, purpose, and commercial sense, not just literal wording. (5) Clarifying that "without prejudice" privilege falls away once negotiations succeed and result in an agreement. (6) Reinforcing that non-variation clauses must be complied with but should be interpreted sensibly and restrictively, and that parties' conduct and commercial context inform whether variations have occurred.
Explore 5 related cases • Click to navigate