“In Africa there is a concept known as ‘ubuntu’ – the profound sense that we are human only through the humanity of others.” (Nelson Mandela)
International Nelson Mandela Day is celebrated worldwide on 18 July every year, but in South Africa the whole of July is Mandela Month.
What better time to talk about the concept of “ubuntu”, which emphasises our interconnectedness and interdependence, and embraces values like fairness, compassion, respect and dignity?
How does ubuntu influence your legal rights?
Our courts have often considered, and sometimes applied, the principles of ubuntu in a wide variety of legal contexts. The “it’s unfair and unjust!” defence pops up regularly (often when discussing whether something is “contrary to public policy”) in disputes of all kinds. Asset sales, property sales, leases, neighbours’ disputes, evictions, workplace litigation, franchise agreements, criminal sentencing cases, civil claims, defamation claims, trust disputes and so on – the list truly is endless.
For example, in 2023 the High Court refused to order the eviction of a group of tenants, despite the fact that they were in breach of their leases, on the basis that the eviction would render them homeless and thus the application for eviction was “completely devoid of any empathy for the [tenants’] living conditions. There is,” the court stressed, “in fact, no ubuntu at all.”
When is a contract unenforceable for being contrary to ubuntu?
When it comes to contracts, we have wide freedom to contract as we please, and people entering into agreements need to know with reasonable certainty that the law will help them enforce compliance with those agreements. Those principles have led our courts to confirm that the fundamental principle of “agreements must be honoured” or “you are bound by what you agree to” (“pacta sunt servanda” in lawyer speak) still underpins our law.
As the Constitutional Court has put it, “a court may not refuse to enforce contractual terms on the basis that the enforcement would, in its subjective view, be unfair, unreasonable or unduly harsh … It is only where a contractual term, or its enforcement, is so unfair, unreasonable or unjust that it is contrary to public policy that a court may refuse to enforce it. (Emphasis added.)
In practical terms, this means that as a general rule our courts will enforce agreements entered into freely and voluntarily. But they can still be persuaded to hold a contract void and unenforceable if satisfied that it is against public policy, a concept that is measured objectively and informed by constitutional values such as ubuntu. A good example is a 2013 High Court refusal to enforce an acceleration clause in a loan agreement because of its draconian implications – it would have allowed the lender to call up in full a debt of R7.6m after the borrower had failed, through a miscalculation, to pay just R86,57 in default interest.
Every case will be decided on its own facts and merits. That inevitably opens up grey areas, which in turn provide fertile ground for uncertainty, dispute, and litigation. So, although in practice our courts lean strongly in favour of enforcing agreements as they stand, rather be safe than sorry – the more closely your contracts of all types adhere to principles of fairness and justice, the less likely you are to see them challenged in court. (And the better you will sleep at night.)
Speak to us if you’re uncertain whether or not your contracts and other documentation will pass muster if measured against ubuntu.
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.
© LawDotNews
