The Supreme Court of Appeal considered whether a security services agreement was illegal under s 20(1)(a) of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act because the provider was not registered. It held that the agreement was illegal and void ab initio, but it also found that Kapa Bokoni Trading and Projects 10 CC's counterclaim could not be determined on the stated case and had to go back for evidence.
This may be relevant to disputes about unregistered private security providers, invalid agreements, and enrichment claims arising from payments made under such agreements.
Evidence from source
Summary: Unjustified enrichment – illegal contract – statutory illegality – s 20(1) (a) of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001
Supports: Summary sentence 1: the case concerns whether the security services agreement was illegal under the Act.
I find that the correct interpretation of the Act is that it prohibits contracts that are inconsistent with s 20(1) (a) , and invalidity means illegality. It follows that the agreement is illegal, and hence void ab initio
Supports: Summary sentence 2: the agreement was held to be illegal and void ab initio.
the defendant’s counterclaim cannot be determined by way of a stated case and is referred for the hearing of evidence on the resumption of the trial