• Law Reports
  • Siwelile Fast Foods CC and Another v KFC …

Siwelile Fast Foods CC and Another v KFC (Pty) Ltd (2025/174184) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1083 (30 October 2025)

45 Reportability
Commercial Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Franchise Agreements — Interlocutory interdict — Applicants sought to prevent termination of franchise agreements pending action against respondent — Respondent withdrew notice of default, rendering application moot — Applicants failed to establish a prima facie right or balance of convenience in their favour — Application dismissed with costs.

Comprehensive Summary

Case Note


Case Name: Siwelile Fast Foods CC and T&T Take Away Enterprises CC v KFC (Pty) Ltd

Citation: High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg Case Number: 2025-174184

Date: 30 October 2025


Reportability


This case is reportable due to its implications on the enforcement of franchise agreements and the interpretation of contractual obligations under South African law. The significance lies in the court's analysis of the principles governing urgent interdicts, particularly under circumstances where a party's right to terminate a contract is called into question based on alleged breaches of agreement. Furthermore, the ruling addresses how urgency is assessed, especially in commercial relationships governed by franchise agreements.


The judgment articulates the need for clarity in claims brought before the court, particularly where an interlocutory relief is sought. This case also highlights the balance of convenience criterion, which is essential in determining whether to grant such urgent applications amidst disputes about compliance and performance in business relationships.


Cases Cited



  • Van Jaarsveld v Griekenland Boerdery Eerste Respondent [1999] JOL 5230 (O)

  • Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security and Another [2010] ZACC 26; 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC)

  • Koki v Ngubane and Other [2017] ZAKZPHC 2


Legislation Cited



  • Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008

  • The Common Law of Contract


Rules of Court Cited



  • Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 6 (Urgent Applications)


HEADNOTE


Summary


The applicants, each operating franchised outlets of the respondent KFC, sought an urgent interlocutory interdict to prevent the termination of their franchise agreements pending further legal action. They contended that the respondent's notice of default was unfounded and that their non-compliance issues were resolved. After a contentious hearing, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the applicants failed to present sufficient legal grounds for the relief sought.


Key Issues



  1. The legitimacy and grounds for the notice of default issued by KFC.

  2. Whether the applicants had established a prima facie case for urgent interdictory relief.

  3. The assessment of urgency and the balance of convenience in contract disputes.


Held


The High Court dismissed the application for an interdict, ruling that the applicants did not demonstrate a valid case for the relief sought. The court determined that the withdrawal of the notice of default by the respondent rendered the application moot, and the balance of convenience did not favor the applicants. Furthermore, the applicants failed to adequately disclose relevant events surrounding the contractual dispute, impacting their level of transparency with the court.


THE FACTS


The applicants operate various franchise outlets under a franchise agreement with KFC. Siwelile Fast Foods CC entered into the franchise relationship in 2004, while T&T Take Away Enterprises CC had its franchise agreement dating back to 1992. The respondents regularly inspect franchisee compliance with contractual standards and issue notices for any defaults.


The applicants filed for an urgent interlocutory interdict after receiving a request from the respondent to sign a termination agreement aimed at facilitating the sale of their businesses pending termination. This request followed a notice of default dated 19 August 2025, alleging that the applicants had engaged in non-compliance with the franchise agreements. The applicants claimed the relevant non-compliances were non-material and had been addressed, arguing that the notice of default was therefore unfounded.


The respondent countered by detailing inspections conducted after the notice and interactions with the applicants, explicitly stating that the issues raised were serious and pertinent to public health and safety. As the case unfolded, the parties submitted further arguments, but the respondent later withdrew the notice of default, complicating the matter further.


THE ISSUES


The central legal questions before the court pertained to the validity of the notice of default served by KFC and whether the applicants demonstrated grounds for an urgent interdict. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the applicants maintained a prima facie right to the relief sought, the urgency of their application, and whether they had complied with the requirements necessary to obtain such an interdict. Additionally, the court considered the ramifications of the respondent's withdrawal of the default notice.


ANALYSIS


The court's reasoning encapsulated a careful examination of the contractual dynamics between the parties, rooting its analysis in both common law and the principles governing franchising. It underscored that the applicants had not established a clear prima facie right, particularly as their claims were vague regarding the alleged nature of their action proceedings.


Moreover, the bailiwick of urgency was critically evaluated. The court articulated that urgency must stem from the immediate need to protect rights, which in this case was not convincingly demonstrated. The applicants failed to elucidate the sequence of events during which the purported urgency arose, thereby compromising their credibility and approach.


The court also reiterated that the enforceability of contractual terms is pivotal, emphasizing that business operations must adhere to franchisor stipulations, especially regarding public safety standards. The overall take of the court pointed towards an aversion to broadly restricting termination rights without substantive justification from the applicants.


REMEDY


Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for an interdict with costs, affirming the respondent’s rights to terminate agreements if breaches of compliance were valid and unresolved. The order reflected a balance between ensuring compliance in franchise relationships and adhering to franchisee autonomy under contractual terms.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


This ruling underscores significant legal principles such as the necessity for clear prima facie evidence when seeking urgent interdictory relief, the importance of transparency in legal submissions, and the fundamental nature of contractual obligations in preserving the integrity of franchise relationships. The case reaffirms that parties must adhere strictly to the terms of their agreements while balancing the need for practical enforcement against theoretical legal claims. In commercial law, the issues surrounding compliance and public interest must also be at the forefront of resolving disputes within franchise operations.

1


REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NUMBER: 2025-174184



In the matter between:
SIWELILE FAST FOODS CC First Applicant
T&T TAKE AWAY ENTERPRISES CC Second Applicant
and
KFC (PTY) LTD Respondent

Heard: 09 October 2025
Further submissions: 13 and 15 October 2025
Delivered: 30 October 2025


J U D G M E N T

YACOOB, J:
[1] The applicants are the owners and operators, each independently, of various
franchise outlets, with franchise agreements with the respondent. The second
respondent’s earliest franchise with the respondent was entered into in December
1992, while the first respondent has been in a franchise relationship with the
respondent since 2004.
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.

…………..…………............. ……………………
SIGNATURE DATE

DATE
SIGNATURE
30 October 2025

2

[2] In terms of the standard terms of the franchise agreements, franchisees have certain standards to comply with, and are assessed regularly for their compliance. A franchisee who receives two notices of default within a year [3] The applicants approach this court for an urgent interlocutory interdict to prevent the respondent from giving notice to cancel in respect of any of the franchise outlets owned and operated by either of the applicants, and to compel the respondent to treat the applicants and their outlets as ordinary franchisees whose agreements are not in jeopardy. The relief is interlocutory, pending the outcome of an action to be instituted by the applicants against the respondent. It is unclear exactly what the nature of the action will be. [4] The event on which the applicants rely for urgency is a request from the respondent on 16 September 2025 that the applicants sign a termination agreement, which gives them time to sell the businesses which hold the franchises before the franchise agreements are terminated. The request was accompanied by an ultimatum, to the effect that, if the termination agreement is not signed, a notice of termination would be issued. [5] This request for termination, according to the applicants, was preceded by a notice of default on 19 August 2025, and by “some unresolved disputes”. The applicants in their founding affidavit do not identify what these unresolved disputes are, save for the issues identified in the notice of default, and do not set out what happened between 19 August 2025 when the notice of default was issued and 16 September 2025 when they were requested to sign the termination agreement. [6] According to the applicants, the notice of default was unfounded. It was based on a term in the franchise agreements permitting a notice of default to be issued if two

3

notices of non-compliance were issued within 24 months. Termination may then follow if the defaults are not remedied within the identified period. [7] The applicants claim that the non-compliances identified in the notices of non-compliance are not material and have been remedied, and some do not have any basis. [8] It must be noted that the franchise agreements do not require that the non-compliances continue to exist during the 24 month period, but that there were two notices within the period. However the fact that the notice of default permits the franchisee to remedy within a specified period does give the impression that the fact that non-compliance was remedied is relevant. [9] Be that as it may, the respondent in the answering affidavit set out in detail inspections it had undertaken after the notice of default, and interactions with the applicants. Much of the content of the answering affidavit is denied. I do not deal with this because of later events. [10] During the hearing, counsel for the applicants spent much time attempting to demonstrate why the notice of default was flawed and without basis. No emphasis was placed on any other issues identified in the answering affidavit. I indicated to the parties that if I were to grant any relief (without having made any decision whether a case was made out), it would be to interdict any termination notice which was based on the default notice of 19 August. I would not interdict a termination notice in general, for a number of reasons.

4

[11] The first is that there may be other reasons that support termination, in terms of the franchise agreements. The court is not omniscient, nor are the parties. An order that goes beyond what is contained in the papers would be ill-considered and incompetent. [12] Second, the concept of contractual freedom is still one of the fundamental principles of contract in South African law. Nobody can be forced to remain in a contractual relationship, as long as their exit from that relationship is within what is envisaged by the contract. [13] Third, as pointed out by the respondent, many of the requirements with which the applicants are alleged not to have complied are relevant to food safety and public safety. The need for compliance with such requirements obviously has a public interest component, and if there are other or more serious infractions of which the court is unaware, the applicants cannot be protected from the consequences of those. [14] Fourth, the respondent has an interest in ensuring that the franchise agreements are properly complied with as the manner in which franchise outlets are operated and perceived by the public affects their reputation. It is worth noting that it is this reputation on which the applicants rely as franchisees for the success of their businesses. [15] At the close of the hearing, I directed the parties to make further submissions regarding the issue of a more limited interdict based on the notice of default. The respondent then unconditionally withdrew the default notice of 19 August, and submitted that in those circumstances the appropriate order would be that the application is removed from the roll, costs reserved, as costs do not need to be

5

determined on an urgent basis. The respondent did, however, indicate that its rights were reserved regarding the alleged non-compliance on which the notice was based. [16] The applicants’ response was that they did not accept the withdrawal because it was unclear and did not withdraw the respondent’s position that the facts on which the notice was based still exist. However, this court is not in any position to determine any factual dispute, and that is not the case with which I am seized. The applicants persist with seeking interdictory relief. [17] Taking into account that the notice of default has been withdrawn, and that the respondent may well be entitled to terminate for any other reason, it is reasonable to conclude that the relief sought is moot on the case pleaded by the applicant, and deal with the matter in the way suggested by the respondent. [18] However, on reflection, it is clear that the applicant has simply not made out a case for the relief sought. It is difficult to imagine what circumstances would have been entitled the applicants to the very broad interdict which they sought. Be that as it may, the case for such an interdict was not made out. [19] It is unclear from the founding affidavit what the prima facie right is which the applicants seek to protect. In the replying affidavit, the right is identified as the right to continue their businesses under the franchise agreements. That right is not an unlimited one, and is contingent on them complying with their own contractual obligations. In circumstances where the applicants also do not set out clearly what the nature of the action proceedings will be, and what exactly the dispute is that the action proceedings will seek to resolve, the court is not able to conclude that the status quo ante must be preserved pending the action proceedings.

6


[20] In addition, it seems to me that the balance of convenience does not lie with the
applicants, for the same reasons I have set out above regarding why the interdict the
applicants seek is, in its original version, overbroad.
[21] Finally, by not disclosing to the court in the founding affidavit what happened
between 19 August and 16 September, despite a large amount of detail for the period
from September 2024 to August 2025, the applicants have not played open cards with
the court. The respondent has placed its version before the court, and the applicants
raise various quibbles with the version, which in my view do not provide a substantive
response. This may not have redounde d to the applicants’ disadvantage had they
been more open in their founding affidavit.
[22] On balance, I am not satisfied that the applicants have made out a case for the
relief sought.
[23] In these circumstances, I make the following order:
The application is dismissed with costs, on scale C.

________________________
S. YACOOB
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name
is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 30 October 2025.

7

APPEARANCES For the applicants: N Redman SC Instructed by: Fluxmans Inc For the respondent: HC Bothma SC Instructed by: DLA Piper South Africa (RF) Inc

Back to Law Reports