{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant's payment of RTGS$874 per month discharged her obligations under the instalment sale agreement","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant continued paying RTGS$874; SI 33/19 converted USD to RTGS at 1:1"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent's cancellation of the agreement was valid","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Notice given was for 7 days; Section 8 requires minimum 30 days"}
{"issue_text":"Whether an interdict should be granted to protect applicant's possession","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant fears eviction; property developed; prospective buyers viewing"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant entered into an instalment sale agreement in 2016 to purchase property for USD$57,400, payable in monthly instalments of USD$874. After SI 33/19 converted USD obligations to RTGS at 1:1, the respondent demanded payment at interbank rate and cancelled the agreement when applicant continued paying RTGS$874. Applicant sought declaration that agreement was valid and enforceable, and an interdict against interference.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases