Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (PTY) Ltd (041/2024) [2025] ZASCA 65 (20 May 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Auckland Park Theological Seminary v Wamjay Holding Investments (Pty) Ltd
Citation: (041/2024) [2025] ZASCA 65
Date: 20 May 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significance in clarifying the application of unjustified enrichment principles under South African law, particularly in relation to the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The judgment addresses the commencement of prescription in claims involving non-legal practitioners and explores the implications of the Constitutional Court's findings on the validity of cession agreements. The case sets a precedent for future claims of unjustified enrichment and the interpretation of legal knowledge in relation to prescription.

Cases Cited

• University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary (Pty) Ltd 2017 JDR 1991 (GJ)
• University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary and Another [2021] ZACC 13; 2021 (8) BCLR 807 (CC); 2021 (6) SA 1 (CC)
• Le Roux and Another v Johannes G Coetzee & Seuns and Another [2023] ZACC 46; 2024 (4) BCLR 522 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 1 (CC)

Legislation Cited

• Prescription Act 68 of 1969

Rules of Court Cited

• None cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeal addressed the appeal by Auckland Park Theological Seminary against a judgment that found it liable to repay R6.5 million to Wamjay Holding Investments based on unjustified enrichment. The court examined when the prescription period commenced under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act and whether the exception applicable to legal practitioners should extend to non-legal practitioners. Ultimately, the court upheld the appeal, ruling that the cession agreement was invalid and that Wamjay was not entitled to the repayment.

Key Issues

The key legal issues included determining the commencement of prescription under the Prescription Act, the applicability of exceptions for claims against practitioners, and the validity of the unjustified enrichment claim based on the condictio indebiti.

Held

The court held that the appeal was upheld with costs, and the order of the high court was set aside. The court concluded that the cession agreement was invalid, and thus, Wamjay was not entitled to recover the amount paid to ATS.

THE FACTS

The University of Johannesburg owned a property leased to Auckland Park Theological Seminary. ATS ceded its lease rights to Wamjay Holding Investments without UJ's consent. UJ later learned of the cession and deemed it invalid, leading to eviction proceedings against ATS and Wamjay. The Constitutional Court ultimately ruled that the rights in the lease were personal to ATS and not freely cedable, prompting Wamjay to seek repayment from ATS based on unjustified enrichment.

THE ISSUES

The court needed to decide when the prescription period began for Wamjay's claim, whether the exception to the prescription rule for legal practitioners applied to this case, and whether Wamjay had established its claim for unjustified enrichment.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the timeline of events, focusing on when Wamjay had knowledge of the facts that would trigger the commencement of prescription. It considered the implications of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the validity of the cession agreement and whether Wamjay's claims were timely. The court also evaluated the arguments regarding the applicability of the legal practitioner exception to non-legal practitioners, ultimately finding that the circumstances did not warrant such an extension.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the appeal be upheld, with costs awarded to ATS, including the costs of two counsel where employed. The high court's order was set aside, and the application for repayment was dismissed.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case established that the commencement of prescription under the Prescription Act is contingent upon the claimant's knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim. It clarified that the exception for claims against legal practitioners does not automatically extend to non-legal practitioners, emphasizing the need for clear knowledge of legal conclusions in determining the start of the prescription period.