COVID-19

the impact of the lockdown on the enforcement of contracts and whether one can rely on the force majeure provisions in the relevant agreement and/or other common law principles

Written by Martina Mutasa - Candidate Attorney and

Tshegofatso Monnana - Associate and

Sereeka Ananmalay - Associate


INTRODUCTION

The national lockdown in South Africa has, as with many other countries, resulted in several companies being unable to operate ‘business-as-usual’, causing the performance of certain contractual obligations to be affected. As a result, contracting parties are wanting to know what their rights are in instances where they are unable or inhibited from performing their contractual obligations.


FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE

Force majeure is a contractual principle which exists to protect parties to an agreement should an event that is beyond the control of those parties occur, preventing them from performing their obligations in terms of the agreement for a specified period of time.[1]

Force majeure clauses allow a contracting party to escape the usual consequences of non-performance or delayed performance, if such performance is rendered impossible due to an unforeseeable  and unavoidable event such as natural disasters, wars, insurrection, sabotage, and public riots.[2] However, each force majeure clause is drafted differently and whether or not failure to perform as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ensuing government restrictions on movement falls within the ambit of such a clause, needs to be established on a case-by-case basis. In simple terms, the force majeure provision would need to expressly cover non-performance or delayed performance due to, for example, a “pandemic” or “government restrictions”.

South African courts are strict in their application and enforcement of the force majeure principle - it does not excuse non-performance of contractual obligations in all cases.[3] In the case of Glencore Grain Africa (Pty) Ltd v Du Plessis NO & Others[4], the court held that the general rule that impossibility of performance excuses a party from its obligation does not apply in all instances, the impossibility must be assessed in relation to the circumstances of each case.[5]


COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING IMPOSSIBILITY

Where an agreement, however, does not have a force majeure clause, it may be possible to rely on the common law principle of supervening impossibility of performance. In this regard, the courts have determined that if a party is prevented from performing their obligations due to irresistible force [vis major] or unforeseeable accident [casus fortuitous], it may be discharged from liability.[6] Therefore, for supervening impossibility of performance to apply, the event in question must be unforeseeable with reasonable foresight, or unavoidable with reasonable care.[7] Furthermore, the event, which needs to be no fault of the parties themselves, would need to render performance objectively impossible.[8] Objective impossibility would require a party to prove that it would have been impossible for any person in his/her position to perform the contractual obligation under the circumstances in question.


CONCLUSION

It is important to note that the Covid-19 pandemic itself may not render the performance of all contractual obligations impossible because, for example, certain businesses remain operational and may still be in a position to perform their contractual obligations. However, parties may be able to invoke a force majeure clause or the common law principle of supervening impossibility where certain conditions, as set out above, have been met. We therefore advise that you approach us for further legal advice should you wish to rely on the doctrine of supervening impossibility or a force majeure clause in a specific contract in an attempt to escape the natural consequences of non-performance or delayed performance of a contractual obligation.


[1]In Joint Venture Between Aveng (Africa) Pty Ltd and Strabag International GmbH v South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd and another [2019] JOL 41800 (GP).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Glencore Grain Africa (Pty) Ltd v Du Plessis NO & Others (2007) JOL 21043 (O).

[4]Ibid.

[5]Ibid.

[6] In the case of FAWU obo Meyer / Rainbow Chickens [2003] 2 BALR 140 (CCMA), the commissioner held that incapacity could arise from supervening impossibility of performance.

[7] Owner of the MV "Snow Crystal" v Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority [2006] JOL 18697 (C) at page 28-29. The plaintiff in this case alleged that it had entered into an agreement with the defendant, in terms of which the latter agreed to make a dry dock available for the purpose of repairing plaintiff’s ship. Alleging that the defendant had breached the agreement, the plaintiff sued for damages. The defendant denied the existence of the contract, and in the alternative pleaded that should the contract be found to exist, then the performance thereof was rendered impossible by certain circumstances set out in the plea. The court held that the first question to decide was whether a binding agreement had come about between the parties. The court found that, despite the defendant’s submissions to the contrary, it had. It then turned to consider the defence of supervening impossibility of performance. The facts satisfied the court that there were no insurmountable obstacles to the performance of the defendant’s contractual obligation.

[8] Unibank Savings and Loans Ltd (formerly Community Bank) v Absa Bank Ltd 2000 (4) SA 191 (W) at 198,

2020 COVID-19 Draft Tax Bills Non-Profit Organisations Professionals Forum

This submission is made on behalf of a group of professionals who work for and consult to the not-for-profit sector. We are lawyers, auditors, accountants and consultants who have, between us, a long history of working for non-profits (some of us were involved in drafting section 30 of the Income Tax Act and the PBAs) and we have clients from a broad spectrum of public benefit organisations (“PBOs”) and other non-profits.

The impact of the national lockdown on the ability to litigate in the High Court and the solutions offered by online dispute resolution mechanisms

On 16 March 2020, unprecedented steps were taken to limit the public’s access to the courts, in a directive issued by the Honourable Judge President Mlambo (“the JP”). In this directive, the JP implemented various provisions to address the spread of Covid-19 in the Pretoria and Johannesburg High Courts which, inter alia, included the following: that the Judges and court staff would only deal with urgent matters and matters already enrolled for hearing and that access to the courts would be limited to certain individuals.

Businesses In A Tight Squeeze As The President Announces 21- Day National Lockdown

The unprecedented outbreak of COVID-19 has had disastrous global implications and has led to significant socio-economic disruptions. South African businesses are fighting for survival as the arrival of COVID-19 in South Africa has led to President Cyril Ramaphosa (“the President”) declaring a national state of disaster and announcing a 21 day national lockdown, with effect from midnight 26 March 2020 until 16 April 2020, in an attempt to minimise the spread of COVID-19 throughout the Republic.