THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 209/2020

In the matter between:

ENGEN PETROLEUM LIMITED
Appellant

and

RISSIK STREET ONE STOP CC
First Respondent
t/a RISSIK STREET ENGEN

KNOESEN, WILLEM JOHANNES
Second Respondent

Neutral citation:
Engen Petroleum Limited v Rissik Street One Stop CC and
Another (Case no 209/2020) [2021] ZASCA 63 (26 May 2021)

Coram:
ZONDI,
MOCUMIE
and
DLODLO
JJA
and
KGOELE
and
UNTERHALTER AJJA

Heard:
16 March 2021

Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email. It has been published on the

Supreme Court of Appeal website and released to SAFLII. The date and
time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 26 May 2021.

Summary: Appeal against order staying eviction proceedings pending finalisation of
arbitration requested by fuel retailer in terms of s 12B of the Petroleum Products Act
120 of 1977 in order to challenge refusal to consider and consent to an offer to
purchase filling station business ─ lease agreement expired by effluxion of time ─
referral of dispute to arbitration does not give retailer a right to continue occupying
premises pending a sale of fuel retail business ─ appeal upheld.

___________________________________________________________________

ORDER
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: Limpopo Division of the High Court, Polokwane (Kganyago J sitting
as court of first instance):
The appeal succeeds with costs.
The orders of the court a quo are set aside and substituted by the following
orders:
‘(a)
The counter-application is dismissed.
(b)
The first and second respondents and all those occupying the property through
or under the first respondent, alternatively, the second respondent are ordered to
vacate within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order, the immovable property
comprised of:
1.1.
Portion 1 of Erf 324, Pietersburg Township, Registration Division LS, Province
of Limpopo, in extent 714 square meters held under Deed of Transfer T 3390/2016;
1.2.
Portion 3 of Erf 324, Pietersburg Township, Registration Division LS, Province
of Limpopo, in extent 699 square meters held under Deed of Transfer T 3390/2016;
and
1.3.
Remainder of Erf 324, Pietersburg Township, Registration Division LS,
Province of Limpopo, in extent 729 square meters held under Deed of Transfer
T 3390/2016, with street address at 48 Rissik Street, Polokwane.
(c)
The Sheriff of Court is authorised and directed to take such steps as are
necessary in order to give effect to para (b) above.
(d)
The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s taxed costs
of this application, on the attorney and client scale.’

___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
Zondi JA (Mocumie and Dlodlo JJA and Kgoele and Unterhalter AJJA
concurring)
[1] This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Limpopo Division of the
High Court, Polokwane (per Kganyago J) in terms of which it granted the stay of the
eviction proceedings against the respondents and an order interdicting the appellant
from taking any steps that would affect the operations of the service station business
pending the outcome of the arbitration processes in terms of s 12B of the
Petroleum Products Act 120 of 1977 (the Act). The appeal is with the leave of the court
a quo.

[2] The issue is whether it was competent for the court a quo to order the stay of
the eviction proceedings instituted against the respondents and grant an interim
interdict against the appellant on the basis that the respondents had submitted a
request to the Controller of Petroleum Products (the Controller) to refer the dispute to
arbitration in terms of s 12B of the Act. The relevant provisions of the section read as
follows:
‘(1)
The Controller of Petroleum Products may on request by a licensed retailer alleging an
unfair or unreasonable contractual practice by a licensed wholesaler, or vice versa, require,
by notice in writing to the parties concerned, that the parties submit the matter to arbitration.
. . .
(4)
An arbitrator contemplated in subsection (2) or (3) ─
(a)
shall determine whether the alleged contractual practices concerned are unfair or
unreasonable and, if so, shall make such award as he or she deems necessary to correct such
practice; and
(b)
shall determine whether the allegations giving rise to the arbitration were frivolous or
capricious and, if so, shall make such award as he or she deems necessary to compensate
any party affected by such allegations;
(5)
Any award made by an arbitrator contemplated in this section shall be final and binding
upon the parties concerned and may, at the arbitrator’s discretion, include any order as to
costs to be borne by one or more of the parties concerned.’

[3] The facts which gave rise to the proceedings are largely common cause. The
appellant, Engen Petroleum Limited (Engen) carries on business as a manufacturer,
marketer and bulk distributor of petroleum, diesel and chemical products. It is a lessee
of Portions 1, 3 and Remainder of Erf 324, Pietersburg Township, Limpopo Province
(the premises) in terms of a notarial deed of lease it concluded with the owner of the
premises. In terms of the notarial deed of lease, Engen has the right to sublease the
premises.

[4] The first respondent is Rissik Street One Stop CC t/a Rissik Street Engen. It
conducts a fuel retail business from the premises in terms of the agreement of lease
and operation of service station (lease agreement) it concluded with Engen. Mr
Knoesen, the sole member of Rissik Street Engen, is the second respondent.

[5] Rissik Street Engen has occupied the premises since 1998 in terms of the
lease agreement which has been renewed from time to time. The lease that was in
place at the time of the dispute was concluded by the parties on 30 March 2015,
commencing on 1 April 2015 and ending on 30 June 2018. There are eight Schedules
attached to the lease agreement and these Schedules form part of the agreement.

[6] Clause 22 of Schedule 2 recognises Mr Knoesen’s right as a dealer to sell the
service station business at any time during the currency of the lease agreement and
the procedure for the sale is regulated by Schedule 3. Clause 1.3 of Schedule 3
provides the following:
‘Should the Dealer wish to sell the Business, he/she/it may suggest a proposed
purchaser/successor to the Company, and the Company will generally consider that proposed
successor as a candidate for a new operating lease of the Premises, subject to the provisions
of this Schedule 3. If the prospective successor proposed by the Dealer meets all of the
Company’s selection criteria for a Dealer at the Premises, then in the absence of any reason
to the contrary, the Company will generally be willing to prefer that prospective successor
above others wishing to operate the Business at the Premises.’

[7] In terms of clause 1.4 of Schedule 3 the dealer wishing to sell the business, is
not constrained to determine the selling price. But such sale is subject to Engen being
able to conclude an operating lease with the purchaser or successor.

[8] The dealer’s rights to sell the business on termination of the lease is regulated
by clause 44 of Schedule 2, which provides the following:
‘44.1. Subject to any provisions of the contrary, where the Dealer’s tenure is prematurely
terminated by the Company in terms of this Agreement, for whatever reason, the Dealer shall
not have the right to any compensation in respect of his loss of the Business. The Company
shall have the right to appoint a new Dealer, and the Dealer shall be entitled to negotiate with
such new Dealer the terms of any take-over of stock and/or equipment belonging to the Dealer
on the Premises; alternatively, the Dealer shall have the right to remove such stock or
equipment owned by itself.
44.2. If the Company intends or elects for any reason not offering the Dealer a further
opportunity to lease the Premises from the Termination Date of this Agreement, the Company
shall endeavour to advise the Dealer in writing at least twelve months prior to the Termination
Date of this Agreement. If such advice is not provided at least twelve months prior to the
Termination Date of this Agreement, the Company may still provide such advice at any time
prior to the Termination Date of this Agreement provided that the Dealer’s tenure at the
Premises will then be extended for a period beyond the Termination Date of this Agreement
to ensure that the Dealer will have received at least twelve months’ notice that the Company
intends or has elected not offering the Dealer a further opportunity to lease the Premises from
the Termination Date of this Agreement extended as aforesaid. Any extension as aforesaid
will be on the terms and conditions of the Company’s operating leases at such time. Should
the Company advise the Dealer that it does not intend renewing the lease between the parties,
the Dealer shall be entitled to attempt to sell the Business during the remaining period of the
lease, and the Company shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to such sale. Should the
Dealer not have sold the Business prior to the expiry of the lease, the provisions of sub-clause
44.1 of this Schedule 2 shall apply and the Dealer shall not have the right to any compensation
in respect of his loss of the Business.
44.3
Should the Company terminate this Agreement pursuant to sub-clauses 5.4 or 8.3 of
the First part, the Dealer shall be entitled to attempt to sell the Business during the remaining
nine month period of the lease, and the Company shall not unreasonably withhold its consent
to such sale. Should the Dealer not have sold the Business prior to the end of that nine month
period, the provisions of sub-clause 44.1 of this Schedule 2 shall apply and the Dealer shall
not have the right to any compensation in respect of his loss of the Business.
44.4. Should the Company terminate this Agreement pursuant to paragraphs 24.1(a) or
24.1(b) of this Schedule 2, the Dealer (or his/her/its successors in title) shall be entitled to
attempt to sell the Business during the nine month period referred to in paragraphs 24.1(a)

and 24.1(b) of this Schedule 2 (whichever may be applicable), and the Company shall not
unreasonably withhold its consent to such sale. Should the Dealer not have sold the Business
prior to the end of that nine month period, the provisions of sub-clause 44.1 of this Schedule
2 shall apply and the Dealer shall not have the right to any compensation in respect of his loss
of the Business.’

[9] When the lease period was about to expire, the parties endeavoured to
negotiate its extension, but those endeavours failed, as they could not agree on the
new terms. In particular, Engen demanded an upfront payment of R3 million from
Rissik Street Engen as a condition for the renewal of the lease agreement.
Rissik Street Engen refused to pay it, because it could not afford to do so and it was
something that had never been demanded in the past.

[10] It would appear that Engen had paid R3 million to the property owner to secure
the renewal of the notarial deed of lease in respect of the premises, which was due to
expire in June 2018. In turn, Engen sought to recoup this amount from Rissik Street
Engen.

[11] In terms of clause 44.2 of Schedule 2 Engen was obliged to give Rissik Street
Engen at least twelve months’ notice if it intended not to renew the lease. When
Mr Knoesen failed to pay the sum of R3 million, on 2 October 2017, Engen informed
him that it would not renew the lease. In reply, Rissik Street Engen’s attorneys
addressed a letter dated 8 January 2018 to Engen stating the following:
‘4.
Your notice of non-renewal letter dated 2 October 2017 does not indicate that
negotiations between the parties have failed and does not indicate the reason for non-renewal.
5.
Our instructions are that a representative of Engen, Nico De Wet, had on
26 June 2017, advised our client in writing that the “Sales department” was prepared to renew
the Operating Lease with our client on the same terms and conditions as is usually agreed
upon, but that the renewal would be subject to a payment of R3m “goodwill”. When the
payment of R3m for goodwill for its own site was questioned by our client, no further
explanation was provided by Engen.
6.
We have obtained a copy of the Notarial Deed of Lease for the Premises registered in
favour of the Landlord and have noted that in terms of clause 3.1 thereof, Engen is to pay the
Landlord a rental sum of R3m upon registration of the lease, being 22 January 2016. It is

therefore apparent that the R3m goodwill that our client has been requested to pay is in fact
not for “goodwill”, but a payment to be made to Engen in order to recoup what it has had to
pay to the Landlord for registration of the lease for the Premises.
7.
We further refer to paragraph 6 and 7 of your letter dated 2 October 2017, in which our
client is reminded that should it wish to sell its business, the sale will be prohibited unless
Engen agrees to the sale in writing. Same is seen as a reminder to our client that any potential
purchaser will not be guaranteed tenure and it is our submission that Engen’s implementation
of these clauses in our client’s situation is unjust and unreasonable and stands to be
challenged.
8.
It would be unjust to expect that our client, who has run the site successfully for the
past 20 years, is not to be compensated for the business value upon termination of the
agreement with Engen. We also remind you that our client is the lawful holder of the
Site Licence, which licence is transferrable and constitutes a merchantable merx.
9.
Our aim is to achieve a “win-win” result for all parties and our client’s instructions are
that should he not receive a renewal which is not conditional to a payment for “goodwill” or
compensation upon termination, we shall submit a 12B referral to the Controller of Petroleum
Products with regards to Engen’s unfair and unreasonable contractual practice.’

[12] On 22 January 2018, in response to Mr Knoesen’s letter of 8 January 2018,
Engen addressed a letter to Rissik Street Engen in which the following was recorded
at paras 13 and 14:
‘In addition, in view of the fact that your client is legally obliged to vacate the premises on
expiration of the lease, it follows that your client would no longer be in a position to lawfully
operate a service station business from the premises, which in turn means that the business
is no longer a going concern, under which circumstances the retail license would de facto
lapse, rendering the site license invalid.
Should your client however persist with its misguided intention to submit a request in terms of
Section 12B to the Controller of Petroleum Products, it goes without saying that Engen will
accordingly deliver a counter-application for a determination that your client’s allegations are
frivolous and/or capricious, and seek appropriate compensation in lieu thereof.’

[13] Engen’s decision not to grant Rissik Street Engen a further extension of the
operating lease went unchallenged and instead Rissik Street Engen elected to
exercise its right to sell the business. It introduced a potential purchaser to Engen on
25 May 2018 for its consideration and to provide its consent to the proposed sale.

According to Engen the prospective purchaser failed to meet Engen’s selection
criteria, and, as a consequence it refused to provide its consent.

[14] On 17 January 2019 Rissik Street Engen introduced another prospective
purchaser to Engen for its consideration. Engen did not consent to the proposed sale
and refused to provide reasons for its decision. It claimed that in terms of the lease, it
was expressly provided that it was under no obligation to provide any reasons.

[15] It is common cause that on 25 July 2018, some three months before the expiry
of the lease, Mr Knoesen submitted to the Controller a request for referral to arbitration
in terms of s 12B of the Act. In his request for referral, Mr Knoesen made it clear that
the relationship between him and Engen had irretrievably broken down with no
prospect of it being salvaged. It is implicit in this statement that Mr Knoesen did not
wish to have the lease with Engen extended. He sought to be afforded the opportunity
to sell the business without being frustrated by Engen.

[16] Mr Knoesen’s contention that Engen had committed an unfair and/or
unreasonable contractual practice entitling him to seek a remedy under s 12B of the
Act, was based on the following: Engen’s demand for the payment of R3 million, as a
condition to renew the lease; Engine’s refusal to afford him sufficient time to sell the
business, as required by clause 44.2 of Schedule 2; its failure to consider the offers to
purchase the business made by the two prospective purchasers; and finally, its failure
to provide reasons for its refusal to authorise the sale.

[17] Mr Knoesen in his request for referral to arbitration pleaded the following
contractual practices:
‘2.14
It is submitted that irrespective of the interpretation afforded to the respective clause,
I am left in a position where I am unable to exercise my rights in terms of clause 44.2, the
underlined section in particular.
2.15
If I do not know the reason(s) why a particular buyer(s) has not been authorised by
Engen, then I will be unable to remedy that defect when sourcing further interested buyers.
This wastes not only my time but also that of interested parties. Furthermore, if no reason is
provided then their own actions render it impossible for me to assess whether their consent
has been unreasonably withheld in terms of clause 44.2.

2.16
Given Engen’s behaviour to date I have no reason to believe that if I located a third
interested buyer, that Engen would do anything other than refuse the offer to purchase, without
offering any reasons for such refusal.
2.17
After further investigation, I determined that a new, notarial deed of lease had been
signed by Engen with the landlord of the site occupied by Rissik Street Engen, which notarial
deed of lease (“notarial lease”) was signed on 18 November 2015 and duly registered on
22 January 2016.
2.18
In addition to payment of a monthly rental amount of R80 000,00, excluding VAT and
subject to yearly increases, clause 3.1 states that Engen, as the lessee shall pay the sum of
R3 million to the lessor. Clause 3.2 describes this sum as a “lease premium”.
2.19
It is not at all clear what the payment of a “lease premium” is for, nor is it clear how
payment of such sum will benefit Engen or the Applicant.
2.20
Given Engen’s behaviour as described above, I strongly believe that Engen is
attempting to recoup its R3 million “lease premium” from myself under a poorly disguised
demand for “goodwill”. Once Engen realised that I wanted a renewal but was unwilling to pay
this sum, they exercised their right to not renew the Operating Lease and have sought to
punish me by depriving me of my contractual right to sell the business. Once the franchise
has ended Engen will be contractually entitled to sell the business and to the proceeds thereof.
I will be left with nothing. Their repeated refusal to consent to the sale or provide reasons for
their refusal can at best be described as obstructive. No other reasonable conclusion is
possible on the facts that I have at my disposal.’

[18] On 5 July 2019, after the commencement of the eviction proceedings, the
Controller issued a notice referring the dispute to arbitration. The notice identified the
following allegations as constituting the dispute to be referred to arbitration:
‘5.1
By requesting an amount of R3 million for “goodwill” in order to renew their lease
agreement. The Requester had never been required to pay such an amount previously when
renewing the lease, as the Franchisee of the Rissik Street Engen for the past twenty years,
the goodwill generated towards the Franchise would have been due to the action of the
requester and its employees not Engen.
5.2
By not engaging with the Requester in trying to resolve the matter and serving the
Requester with a notice of non-renewal in terms of 44.2 Schedule 2 of the Operation Lease
no reasons [were] provided.

5.3
By refusing to authorise sale to either potential purchaser provided by the Requester
with no reasons thereof. As reasons for refusal where not provided the Requester is unable to
remedy that defect or sourcing further interested buyers.’

[19] When the lease expired, Rissik Street Engen did not vacate the premises and
it has since then, continued to operate the service station and when it was given notice
to vacate, it refused. It claimed it had a right to remain in occupation of the premises
until such time that it was able to sell the business.

[20] In consequence Engen, on 14 March 2019 brought an application in the
court a quo, in which it sought to evict Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen from the
premises. The basis of Engen’s claim was that Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen’s
occupation of the premises had become unlawful by virtue of the fact that the lease
agreement had expired by effluxion of time. Rissik Street Engen opposed the
application and filed a counter-application. In the counter-application it sought a stay
of the proceedings, pending a decision by the Controller in terms of s 12B, and/or a
stay of the proceedings in terms of s 6 of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 and an interdict
preventing Engen from taking any steps that would adversely affect the operations of
Rissik Street Engen, pending the final outcome of the arbitration processes.

[21] In his answering affidavit, Mr Knoesen denied that Engen was entitled to evict
Rissik Street Engen. In amplification of his denial Mr Knoesen alleged the following:
‘30.2
[Engen] has sought to cancel the [operating lease] OL on the premise that the
agreement has terminated by an effluxion of time.
30.3
The premise is nothing more than a contrived abuse of the agreement to disguise the
fact that I refused to pay it R3 million for the renewal of the OL.
30.4
The Applicant’s own actions defeat the bona fides of its cause of action in that it
afforded the First Respondent 12 months’ notice to find a purchaser, which I did, simply to
ignore the existence of same.
30.5
From what has been stated above, the Applicant has acted mala fides in cancelling
the agreement by manipulating the terms thereof and has unreasonably withheld and/or
refused its consideration of suitable buyers.’

[22] Engen opposed the counter-application. It contended that Mr Knoesen’s
insistence on remaining in occupation of the premises until he had sold the business
was misconceived to the extent that there was no intrinsic value to the business
without there being a valid and binding lease in place. Engen argued that the right to
sell the business lapsed when the lease expired on 31 October 2018. It contended
further that, in any event, the sale of business was not dependent on Mr Knoesen’s
continued occupation of the premises.

[23] As I have already stated, the matter came before Kganyago J, who, on
12 February 2020, granted an order staying the proceedings and interdicting Engen
from taking any steps that would adversely affect the operation of the service station
business, pending the outcome of the arbitration process referred to the Controller in
terms of s 12B.

[24] The court a quo rejected Engen’s contention that the referral of the dispute to
the Controller by Mr Knoesen did not bar it from proceeding with the eviction
application after the expiry of the lease by effluxion of time. It held that the fact that the
lease had expired by effluxion of time and that Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen
had been served with a notice to vacate the premises, provided no bar to its grant of
the stay of the eviction proceedings. The court a quo, relying on the Constitutional
Court judgment in Business Zone, reasoned as follows:1
‘[20]
I do not agree with the applicant’s contention. Firstly this will defeat the purpose and
spirit of section 12B which introduces arbitrations. Arbitration[s] are much quicker and . . . cost
effective. Secondly in terms of section 12B (2) the parties determine the rules of arbitration
and they are at liberty to include any dispute which in the case at hand may include eviction.
Thirdly, once the respondents are evicted their sources of income will be diminished which will
place them in a weaker position to finance the pending litigation. Fourthly as held in The
Business Zone 1010 CC arbitration procedures suspend the institution of court litigation.
[21] In terms of section 12B (4) (a) an arbitrator has the powers to make such award as he
or she deems necessary to correct such practice. The terms of reference of the arbitration has
not yet been determined. The respondents are still at liberty to seek reinstatement of the
operating licence and the arbitrator will be empowered to order that. In The Business Zone
1010 CC supra, it was held that regardless of the second cancellation, the arbitrator may have

1 Business Zone 1010 CC t/a Emmarentia Convenience Centre v Engen Petroleum Limited and Others
[2017] ZACC 2; 2017 (6) BCLR 773 (CC) (Business Zone).

power to grant relief for the intervening period. In the case at hand even though the notice
period has expired on the 31st October 2018, that does not preclude the arbitrator to make an
award as he/she deems necessary to correct such alleged unfair and/or unreasonable
contractual practice, which may include reinstatement of the operating lease agreement.’

[25] In its grounds of appeal Engen challenged the findings and the conclusions of
the court a quo on various grounds. It contended, first, that the court a quo erred in
finding that Rissik Street Engen would still be at liberty to seek reinstatement of the
operating lease at the intended arbitration, as an appropriate remedy, and as such,
that an eviction of Rissik Street Engen, prior to the conclusion of the intended
arbitration, would interfere with the powers of the arbitrator at such arbitration. This
was because, so it was contended, Rissik Street Engen did not complain to the
Controller in terms of s 12B of the Act about the termination and/or cancellation of the
lease as having constituted an unfair and/or unreasonable contractual practice.

[26] Secondly, Engen contended that the court a quo erred in holding that
Rissik Street Engen had raised in issue and established that its eviction would diminish
its resources to finance the present litigation when the potential financial
consequences of an eviction order were not raised by Rissik Street Engen in support
of the stay application.

[27] Thirdly, Engen contended that the court a quo incorrectly interpreted the
Constitutional Court’s judgment in Business Zone as authority for the proposition that
a referral to arbitration in terms of s 12B automatically suspended the eviction
proceedings.

[28] The correctness of Engen’s contention depends on the interpretation of s 12B
and its application to the facts of this case. The section has caused considerable
difficulty and is the source of conflicting judgments in the high courts.2 The provisions
of s 12B were extensively considered by the Constitutional Court in Business Zone,
which concerned the review of a decision by the Controller and the Minister of Minerals

2 Future Phambili Petroleum (Pty) Ltd v Chamdor Service Station CC [2017] ZAGPPHC 1206; Engen
Petroleum Limited v Eagle Investors (Pty) Ltd t/a Meyerspark Convenience Centre and Another
(Gauteng Division Pretoria case no 54736/2018); Bright Idea Projects 66 (Pty) Ltd t/a All Fuels v Former
Way Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd t/a Premier Service Station 2018(6) SA 86 (KZP).

and Energy not to refer an alleged unfair or unreasonable contractual practice by
Engen to arbitration in terms of s 12B of the Act. After a comprehensive analysis of
the provisions of the section, the Constitutional Court had this to say:3
‘The purpose of the Act is not only to transform the petroleum industry but “to provide for
appeals and arbitrations”. Section 12B introduces an equitable standard in the framework of
the statutory arbitration mechanism under section 12B. If the same adjudicative standard can
be relied on in section 12B arbitration proceedings and court litigation alike, would that detract
from the purpose of the Act to provide for arbitrations? I think not.
Section 12B arbitration presents an additional route for licensed retailers and wholesalers
alike to have their disputes adjudicated quicker within rules and processes of their own design.
Section 12B offers a statutory guarantee of a mechanism that has become ubiquitous in
contract, which may otherwise not exist possibly due to the unequal bargaining position
retailers vis a vis wholesalers find themselves in. Reliance on the section 12B arbitration
procedure can more accurately be understood as arbitration is ordinarily in contract: it
suspends the institution of court litigation. In turn the section 12B arbitral mechanism is
insulated from becoming a mere preliminary, strategic step to court litigation in that section
12B (5) speaks to the finality of such an award.
The purpose of the Amendment Act “to provide for appeals and arbitrations” through
section 12B cannot be overlooked. The inherent value of section 12B enabling a party to
resolve a dispute through arbitration rather than court proceedings must be recognised.
Arbitration offers an expedient, specialised and procedurally flexible forum to resolve disputes.
It is no wonder that Business Zone would want to benefit from its statutory right under
section 12B to access such a forum. A purposive interpretation of section 12B must give effect
to this right.’ (Footnotes omitted.)

[29] Section 12B(2) allows the parties to a s 12B arbitration to determine the rules
in accordance with which the arbitration will be conducted, as well as the arbitrator
before whom the arbitration will proceed. As regards the remedial action which the
arbitrator appointed under s 12B can impose, the Constitutional Court made it clear at
para 92 of the judgment that ‘the arbitrator’s remedial powers can go no further than
correcting the contractual practice in question’.

3 Business Zone paras 57 to 59.

[30] It is common cause that the lease agreement in terms of which Rissik Street
Engen and Mr Knoesen occupied the premises, expired by effluxion of time on
30 June 2018, and was extended by agreement to 31 October 2018. A notice of an
intention not to renew the lease was given to Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen as
required by clause 44.2 of Schedule 2 to the lease. Ordinarily, Engen was entitled to
seek the eviction of Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen from the premises, if they
continued to occupy the premises after the expiry of a notice period.

[31] Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen refused to vacate the premises when the
lease expired on 31 October 2018. They challenged Engen’s right to evict them on the
ground that Engen had acted ‘mala fide in cancelling the agreement . . . and
unreasonably withheld and/or refused its consideration of suitable buyers’.
Mr Knoesen, as I have explained, in turn, requested the Controller to refer certain
disputes between him and Engen to arbitration. It is this request for referral which
formed the basis of Mr Knoesen and Rissik Street Engen’s counter-application for the
stay of the eviction proceedings. They contended that, in terms of the lease
agreement, they had a right to sell the business, once Engen had given a notice that
it would not renew the lease. They argued that, despite the termination of the
lease agreement, they were entitled to remain in occupation of the premises and to
continue to trade thereon until they sold the business as a going concern.

[32] There is a fundamental problem with this contention and it must be rejected. In
Mr Knoesen’s request for a referral to arbitration, he did not contend that the
non- extension of the lease agreement constituted an unfair contractual practice. It is
for this reason that, when the Controller issued a notice of referral, he did not include
the non-extension of the agreement as one of the issues to be determined by the
arbitrator to be appointed. This means that the arbitrator to be appointed, cannot
decide what has not been referred to him or her.4 This is so, because the scope of the
arbitrator’s jurisdiction is fixed by his or her terms of reference and he or she has no
power to alter its scope by his or her own decision.5 Section 12B(4)(a) requires the
arbitrator to make a factual determination whether the alleged contractual practices

4 P Ramsden The Law of Arbitration: South African and International Arbitration 2 ed (2018) at 203.
5 Radon Projects (Pty) Ltd v N V Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another [2013] ZASCA 83; 2013 (6) SA 345
(SCA) para 28.

are unfair or unreasonable and, if so, make such award as he or she deems necessary
to correct such practice.

[33] The contractual practice complained of by Mr Knoesen, and which he requested
to be referred, was Engen’s failure to consider offers to purchase the business he
submitted to Engen for approval in terms of clause 44.2 of the lease and its refusal to
furnish reasons for their rejection or Engen’s failure to consider them. He contended
that Engen’s failure to furnish reasons made it impossible for him to assess the
reasonableness of its withholding of consent. These complaints, upon referral to the
arbitrator, vest no remedial power in the arbitrator to permit Rissik Street Engen or Mr
Knoesen to remain in occupation, pending the sale of the business.

[34] Whilst it is correct that s 12B(4) imposes the equitable standard and that the
arbitrator may, acting under such standard, override the terms of the contract of the
parties to ensure that fairness and reasonableness prevail, the arbitrator may not in
the exercise of his or her powers, impose a remedial award, which may amount to
reinstatement of the lease agreement for the simple reason that such remedy is not
prescribed under the Act. The lease in this matter expired by effluxion of time, which
meant that the parties had to negotiate and agree on the new terms. They failed to
agree and as a result the lease agreement ended.

[35] Engen’s contention that it was not obliged in terms of the agreement to give
reasons for rejecting the offers to purchase the business, must be rejected. Clause
44.2 imposed an obligation on Engen to notify Mr Knoesen and Rissik Street Engen a
year before the expiry of the term of the lease if it did not intend to renew the lease.
This was necessary because in terms of the agreement Mr Knoesen had a right to sell
the service station business (subject to Engen giving consent which it could not
unreasonably withhold) within the remaining period. It follows therefore that Engen
was obliged in terms of clause 44.2 to furnish Mr Knoesen and Rissik Street Engen
with its reasons as to why it rejected the offer to purchase of the first prospective
purchaser which it received before the expiry of the lease.  Mr Knoesen was entitled
to know why the sale was rejected to enable him to submit offers, which would have
met Engen’s requirements and to determine whether Engen’s rejection was based on
valid grounds.

[36] The reasons to which Mr Knoesen was entitled were therefore necessary for
the purpose of his exercise of his right arising from clause 44.2. But that said, there is
no reason why Engen’s failure to consider and consent to the sale would give rise to
a right that would allow Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen to continue to occupy
the premises when such right was not sought in the request for referral to arbitration.

[37] In my view, in the circumstances of this case it is not open to Mr Knoesen to
rely on the right to sell the business as a form of security against eviction. It is implicit
in the provisions of clause 44.2 of Schedule 2 that the right to sell the business should
be exercised during the currency of the lease and should Mr Knoesen not have sold
the business before the expiry of the lease, the provisions of clause 44.1 of the same
Schedule, apply. In terms of this sub-clause Engen has a right to appoint a new dealer
and Mr Knoesen will be entitled to negotiate with such new dealer the terms of any
take-over of stock and/or equipment, belonging to him on the premises, alternatively,
he can keep same.

[38] The court a quo granted the stay of the eviction on the basis of the proposition
that the arbitration procedure suspends the institution of court litigation and relied on
Business Zone for this proposition. The court a quo misdirected itself. Business Zone
does not provide support for this proposition. The Constitutional Court’s statement in
para 58 of the judgment that the arbitration suspends the institution of court litigation
is qualified in footnote 33 in which it is stated that the suspension will depend on the
terms of the contract. Where the contract has ended and no complaint is referred to
arbitration to seek its extension, the effect of the stay granted by the court a quo is to
grant a remedy in the interim that cannot be obtained by way of final relief in the
arbitration. A stay granted on this basis is not a competent exercise of the court’s
power.

[39] From what has been set out in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that the
court a quo’s exercise of its discretion to grant the stay and the interdict was influenced

by wrong principles. The court a quo improperly exercised its discretion and this Court
is entitled to interfere.6 In the circumstances, its order must be set aside.

[40] In the result, I make the order in the following terms:
The appeal succeeds with costs.
The orders of the court a quo are set aside and substituted by the following
orders:
‘(a)
The counter-application is dismissed.
(b)
The first and second respondents and all those occupying the property through
or under the first respondent, alternatively, the second respondent are ordered to
vacate within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order, the immovable property
comprised of:
1.1.
Portion 1 of Erf 324, Pietersburg Township, Registration Division LS, Province
of Limpopo, in extent 714 square meters held under Deed of Transfer T 3390/2016;
1.2.
Portion 3 of Erf 324, Pietersburg Township, Registration Division LS, Province
of Limpopo, in extent 699 square meters held under Deed of Transfer T 3390/2016;
and
1.3.
Remainder of Erf 324, Pietersburg Township, Registration Division LS,
Province of Limpopo, in extent 729 square meters held under Deed of Transfer
T 3390/2016, with street address at 48 Rissik Street, Polokwane.
(c)
The Sheriff of Court is authorised and directed to take such steps as are
necessary in order to give effect to para (b) above.
(d)
The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s taxed costs
of this application, on the attorney and client scale.’

_________________
ZONDI JA
JUDGE OF APPEAL

6 Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development of South Africa Ltd and Another [2015] ZACC
22; 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC) para 88.

Appearances:

For appellant:

S Aucamp
Instructed by:
Mathopo Moshimane Mulangaphuma Inc. t/a DM5
Incorporated, Johannesburg

McIntyre van der Post, Bloemfontein

For respondents:

G Quixley
Instructed by:

Seton Smith & Associates, Cape Town

Honey Inc. Attorneys, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:

26 May 2021
Status:
Immediate
The following summary is for the benefit of the media in the reporting of this case and does not form part of
the judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Engen Petroleum Limited v Rissik Street One Stop CC and Another (Case no 209/2020) [2021] ZASCA 63 (26
May 2021)
Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld the appellant’s appeal. The appeal was against the judgment
and order of the Limpopo Division of the High Court, Polokwane (the high court) in terms of which it granted the
stay of the eviction proceedings against the respondents and an order interdicting the appellant from taking any
steps that would affect the operations of the service station business pending the outcome of the arbitration
processes in terms of s 12B of the Petroleum Products Act 120 of 1977 (the Act). The appeal was with the leave
of the high court.
The issue was whether it was competent for the high court to order the stay of the eviction proceedings instituted
against the respondents and grant an interim interdict against the appellant on the basis that the respondents had
submitted a request to the Controller of Petroleum Products (the Controller) to refer the dispute to arbitration in
terms of s 12B of the Act.
The appellant, Engen Petroleum Limited (Engen) was a lessee of a premises in terms of a notarial deed of lease it
concluded with the owner of the premises. In terms of the notarial deed of lease, Engen had the right to sublease
the premises. The first respondent, Rissik Street Engen conducted a fuel retail business from the premises in terms
of the agreement of lease and operation of service station (lease agreement) it concluded with Engen. Mr Knoesen,
the sole member of Rissik Street Engen, was the second respondent.
Engen brought an application in the high court in which it sought to evict Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen
from the premises. The basis of Engen’s claim was that Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen’s occupation of the
premises had become unlawful by virtue of the fact that the lease agreement had expired by effluxion of time.
Rissik Street Engen opposed the application and filed a counter-application wherein it sought a stay of the
proceedings, pending a decision by the Controller. Engen opposed the counter-application contending that Mr
Knoesen’s insistence on remaining in occupation of the premises until he had sold the business was misconceived
to the extent that there was no intrinsic value to the business without there being a valid and binding lease in place.
The high court granted an order staying the proceedings and interdicting Engen from taking any steps that would
adversely affect the operation of the service station business, pending the outcome of the arbitration process
referred to the Controller
In its grounds of appeal Engen challenged the findings and the conclusions of the high court on various grounds.
The SCA held that ordinarily, Engen was entitled to seek the eviction of Rissik Street Engen and Mr Knoesen
from the premises, if they continued to occupy the premises after the expiry of a notice period. It rejected Rissik

Street Engine and Mr Knoesen’s contention that, despite the termination of the lease agreement, they were entitled
to remain in occupation of the premises and to continue to trade thereon until they sold the business as a going
concern. This was because they did not contend that the non-extension of the lease agreement constituted an unfair
contractual practice which meant that the arbitrator to be appointed, could not decide what had not been referred
to him or her.
The SCA held that in the circumstances of this case it was not open to Mr Knoesen to rely on the right to sell the
business as a form of security against eviction. Further, the SCA was of the view that where the contract had
ended and no complaint was referred to arbitration to seek its extension, the effect of the stay granted by the high
court was to grant a remedy in the interim that could not be obtained by way of final relief in the arbitration. A
stay granted on this basis was not a competent exercise of the court’s power.
The SCA held that the high court improperly exercised its discretion and that for that reason it was entitled to
interfere. In the circumstances, the SCA upheld the appeal with costs and set aside the orders of the high court.
The eviction order against Rissik Street Engine and Mr Knoesen was granted.
--------oOo--------