The bank contends that it is discharged from its contractual obligations to the respondent by reason of a supervening impossibility otherwise known as a or vis maior namely the RBZ directive. In support of its stance it relies on the judgments casus fortuitus, in 1919 AD 427 and Peters, Flamman & Co v Kokstad Municipality Bob’s Shoe Centre v 1995 (2) SA 421 (A). The brief facts of the Henneways Freight Services (Pty) Ltd Peters, case as summarised in 3 RH Christie Flamman, The Law of Contract in South Africa ed by pp 524-525, are that the appellant firm was contracted to light the streets of Kokstad for a at period of years. During the currency of the contract, in wartime, the partners were interned as enemy aliens and their business wound up under the relevant war legislation. The Municipality’s claim for damages for breach of contract and forfeiture of the firm’s plant under a clause of the contract was rejected by the Appellate Division. At pp 434-5 of the judgment of the court, SOLOMON ACJ remarked as follows: Nor is it necessary to consider generally what are the circumstances in which it “… can be said that a contract has become impossible of performance. For the authorities are clear that if a person is prevented from performing his contract by or vis maior under which would be included such an Act of State we are casus fortuitus, as concerned with in this appeal, he is discharged from liability.” In the case the appellants were contracted to clear Bob’s Shoe Centre (supra) and deliver a consignment of shoes to the respondents factory in the city. A fire consumed the warehouse where the shoes were warehoused. The shoes were destroyed and it became impossible to complete performance of the contract. Clearly the facts of both these cases are distinguishable from those in casu. The appellant herein has not shown that for some reason beyond its control, it cannot, from its resources, repay the debt. It has not proved impossibility. It goes without saying that in
The bank contends that it is discharged from its contractual obligations to the respondent by reason of a supervening impossibility otherwise known as a vis maior or casus fortuitus, namely the RBZ directive. In support of its stance it relies on the judgments in Peters, Flamman & Co v Kokstad Municipality 1919 AD 427 and Bob’s Shoe Centre v Henneways Freight Services (Pty) Ltd 1995 (2) SA 421 (A). The brief facts of the Peters, Flamman, case as summarised in The Law of Contract in South Africa 3 ed by RH Christie at pp 524-525, are that the appellant firm was contracted to light the streets of Kokstad for a period of years. During the currency of the contract, in wartime, the partners were interned as enemy aliens and their business wound up under the relevant war legislation. The Municipality’s claim for damages for breach of contract and forfeiture of the firm’s plant under a clause of the contract was rejected by the Appellate Division. At pp 434-5 of the judgment of the court, SOLOMON ACJ remarked as follows: “… Nor is it necessary to consider generally what are the circumstances in which it can be said that a contract has become impossible of performance. For the authorities are clear that if a person is prevented from performing his contract by vis maior or casus fortuitus, under which would be included such an Act of State as we are concerned with in this appeal, he is discharged from liability.” In the Bob’s Shoe Centre case (supra) the appellants were contracted to clear and deliver a consignment of shoes to the respondents factory in the city. A fire consumed the warehouse where the shoes were warehoused. The shoes were destroyed and it became impossible to complete performance of the contract. Clearly the facts of both these cases are distinguishable from those in casu. The appellant herein has not shown that for some reason beyond its control, it cannot, from its resources, repay the debt. It has not proved impossibility. It goes without saying that in
SC-49-13%20STANDARD%20CHARTERED%20BANK%20ZIMBABWE%20LTD%20VS%20CHINA%20SHOUGANG%20INTERNATIONAL%20.docx