CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes

Citation1989 (1) SA 1 (A)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Law of Contract

Facts of the Case

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.

Legal Issues

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

Judicial Outcome

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

Ratio Decidendi

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.

Obiter Dicta

Data not available for this record

Legal Significance

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.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 22 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cited By 32 Cases

  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a court will use the power to invalidate a contract or not to enforce it sparingly and only in the clearest of cases where harm to…

  • Afrisure CC and Another v Brian James Watson NO and Another(522/2007) [2008] ZASCA 89 (11 September 2008)
    Applies

    Applied for the fundamental and governing principle regarding severability of contracts, namely to have regard to the probable intention of the parties as it…

  • Afrox Healthcare Beperk v StrydomSaak No: 172/2001
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that contractual provisions unduly unfair and contrary to public policy are unenforceable; court emphasises that the power to declare…

  • A J De Jager and Others v Absa Bank BeperkSaaknommer: 303/98
    Cites

    Cited for the principle supporting freedom of contract and the right to bind oneself in respect of legitimate subject matters.

  • Anthony Simon Bock and Others v Duburoro Investments (Pty) LtdCase No 228/2002, [2003] (judgment delivered 26 September 2003)
    Cites

    The court cites this decision for the principle that a private execution clause in a pledge should not prejudice rights of the debtor unduly and for…

  • Barkhuizen v Napier(CCT 72/05) [2007] ZACC 5
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that it is the tendency of the clause to deprive the respondent of his right to judicial redress which should be scrutinised for…

  • Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Others[2020] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Appellate Division decision that a deed of cession contrary to public policy is unenforceable; cited for the principle that the power to strike down contracts…

  • Brummer v Gorfil Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd and OthersSaaknommer: 138/97 (Supreme Court of Appeal)
    Cites

    Cited for the warning not to conclude that a contract is contrary to public policy merely because its terms offend one's individual sense of propriety and…

  • Citibank NA v Thandroyen Fruit Wholesalers CC(287/06) [2007] ZASCA 61
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the fundamental and governing principle regarding severability is to have regard to the probable intention of the parties as it…

  • Daniël Elardus De Beer v Johan Keyser and OthersCase No: 195/2000
    Cites

    Cited for Smalberger JA's statement that the power to declare contracts contrary to public policy should be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of…

  • Donn Edward Jowell v Thomas Howard Bramwell-Jones and OthersCase No 543/97, [2000] SCA (unreported, delivered 28 March 2000)
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished on its facts from the present case.

  • Ethekwini Municipality v Cooperativa Muratori & Cementisti - CMC di Ravenna Societa Cooperativa(181/2022) [2023] ZASCA 95 (12 June 2023)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that allowing general discretion to refuse judgments for contractual money debts gets perilously close to rendering enforcement…

  • GI (Pvt) Ltd versus Zimbabwe Revenue AuthorityHH 155-20, ITC 13/16
    Cites

    Cited as supporting the general proposition that courts will not enforce an illegal contract.

  • Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited v G J Van Der Merwe NOCase No: 569/03
    Cites

    Cited (via Juglal NO) as the source of the test for determining whether a clause is contrary to public policy.

  • Home Talk Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality(225/2016) [2017] ZASCA 77 (2 June 2017)
    Cites

    Cited in relation to the principle that clauses inimical to the interests of the community may well be contrary to public policy.

  • Lötter N O and Others v Minister of Water and Sanitation and Others(725/2020) [2021] ZASCA 159 (8 November 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that public policy generally favours the utmost freedom of contract.

  • Madelein Brisley v Antoinette DrotskySaak no: 432/2000
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that contracts may be unenforceable if inimical to the interests of the community, to be exercised sparingly.

  • Mohamed's Leisure Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd(183/17) [2017] ZASCA 176 (1 December 2017)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that the power to declare contracts contrary to public policy should be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest of cases.

  • Mthembu v LetselaCase No: 71/98
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that public policy is unconscionable and incompatible with the public interest if it has an arbitrary and unjust effect, and that the…

  • N Juglal NO Jumbo Trust t/a OK Foods Port Shepstone v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd t/a OK Franchise DivisionCase no: 634/02 (unreported Supreme Court of Appeal judgment delivered 31 March 2004)
    Applies

    Applied for principles on parate executie clauses, public policy, tendency of transactions, and that courts conclude contractual provisions are contrary to…

  • Ntombizodwa Yvonne Maphango (now Mgidlana) and 17 Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd
    Applies

    Applied for the common-law principle that a contractual term will not be enforced if contrary to public policy.

  • Otto Friederich Graf v Hans Joachim Werner BuechelCase no: 150/2002
    Approves

    Approved the principle from Eastwood v Shepstone that contracts against public policy are judged by their tendency.

  • Price Waterhouse Coopers Inc v National Potato Co-operative LtdCase No 448/02
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that courts should exercise the power to declare agreements contrary to public policy only where impropriety and public harm are…

  • Rajkumar Tahilram v The Trustees for the Time Being of the Lukamber Trust and Another(845/2020) [2021] ZASCA 173 (9 December 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that prevailing public policy should determine whether or not a contract is enforceable, a principle applied for decades in South…

  • RCM Civil (Private) Limited v Petrotrade (Private) LimitedHH 34-20, HC 7976/15
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that agreements inimical to the interests of the community and contrary to law or morality will not be enforced on grounds of…

  • Road Accident Fund v R E MothupiCase number 518/98 (Supreme Court of Appeal, delivered 29 May 2000)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that intention is adjudged by its outward manifestations and on whether manifestation of waiver must be communicated and accepted.

  • SA Bank of Athens Limited v May van ZylCase No 431/03 (SCA, unreported judgment delivered 21 February 2005)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that parate execution is acceptable provided the terms are not unconscionable or incompatible with public policy, and also cited…

  • SA Bank of Athens Limited v May Van Zyl(431/03) [2005] ZASCA 13 (21 February 2005)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that parate execution provisions must not be unconscionable or incompatible with public policy, and that courts conclude provisions are…

  • South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund and Others(770/2023) [2025] ZASCA 120 (21 August 2025)
    Cites

    Cited in relation to the principle of severability of contractual terms.

  • ST v CT(1224/16) [2018] ZASCA 73 (30 May 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the common law principle that agreements contrary to public policy are unenforceable.

  • The Development Bank of Southern Africa Limited v J H J Van Rensburg N O and OthersCase No: 490/2000
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a cession in securitatem debiti resembles pledge

  • Zimbabwe National Water Authority v Kadoma MunicipalityJudgment No. HB 13/13, Case No. HC 3233/12
    Applies

    Court applies the test for when a contract or term may be declared contrary to public policy, citing the principle that it must be clearly inimical to the…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Law of Contract cases

  • ABSA Bank Beperk v Pieter Hendrik Du Preez; ABSA Bank Beperk v Beyplas (Edms) Beperk[2007] ZASCA 67
  • Absa Bank Limited v Christina Martha Moore and Jacques Moore[2016] ZACC 34
  • Absa Bank Limited v Christina Martha Moore and Jacques Moore(20719/2014) [2015] ZASCA 171 (26 November 2015)
  • ACCA Zimbabwe v Cuthbert MunhupedziHH 232-21, HC 3522/20
  • Adam and Another v Moosa[2024] ZAWCHC 117
  • African Banking Corporation of Zambia Limited and Others v Mapula Solutions (Pty) Ltd(766/2024) [2025] ZASCA 38 (26 March 2026)
  • Andrew Kinloch Butters v Nomsa Virginia Mncora(181/2011) [2012] ZASCA 29 (28 March 2012)
  • Andric v Fourie[2024] ZAWCHC 95

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97