- High Court in Durban rejects Educor’s claim that a drafting error voided its R76 million settlement agreement.
- The disputed clauses wrongly described the court process for enforcing payment after default.
- Judge Olsen upheld the settlement and ordered Educor and four related companies to pay the outstanding R63.5 million.
A legal drafting error became the centre of Educor Holdings’ attempt to escape a R76 million settlement after the company failed to stick to its repayment plan.
The dispute came down to whether mistakes by the parties’ lawyers in drafting the enforcement clauses were serious enough to cancel the whole contract. Educor argued they were, while the High Court found they were not.
How the dispute began
In 2021, Redink Rentals (RF) Limited and Tower Investments (Pty) Ltd launched winding-up applications against Educor Holdings and A1 Capital, claiming to be creditors. The cases were argued in April 2023, and judgment was reserved.
Before the court made its decision, the parties settled in writing on 2 May 2023. Educor Holdings, A1 Capital, Damelin, Intec College and Lyceum College joined the agreement, jointly admitting a debt of R76 million.
The settlement required repayment in 12 instalments. The first payment of R4.6 million was made right away, and the winding-up cases were withdrawn. The final payment of R36.9 million was due by 31 March 2024.
The drafting error explained
The agreement included clauses meant to give creditors a quick way to get judgment if Educor defaulted. These clauses said that, after giving notice of breach, the creditors could file signed consents to judgment with the Registrar under Rule 31 and Rule 41(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Judge Olsen found this approach was legally incorrect.
The judgment explained that Rule 31 applies to confessions to judgment in summons proceedings, while Rule 41(4) relates to enforcing written settlements only if the original proceedings have not been withdrawn.
Because the winding-up applications had already been withdrawn, the procedure described in the agreement could never be used. The court called the clauses drafting errors that wrongly merged two different legal routes.
Educor’s defence
After the repayment plan failed, the creditors gave Educor the required notices to fix its breach before claiming the remaining balance of R63 508 000.
Educor admitted signing the settlement and defaulting on payments. Its defence was that both sides had entered the deal under a shared legal mistake. Educor argued that everyone believed there would be a simple process for creditors to get judgment if payments stopped.
Since that legal route didn’t exist, the company claimed the mistake undermined the contract and made the settlement void from the start. The respondents also argued the creditors had used the wrong court process to enforce the agreement.
Why the court rejected the argument
Judge PJ Olsen drew a clear line between the process for enforcing a debt and the agreement that created the debt. He found that the winding-up cases would end, Educor would admit to owing R76 million, and the debt would be paid in instalments.
The mistaken references to Rules 31 and 41(4) affected only the way the deal could be enforced, not the validity of the agreement itself.
The judge also said there was no evidence the creditors would have refused the settlement if they’d known the specific enforcement process was unavailable. The commercial intent remained repayment of the acknowledged debt.
Court criticises delaying tactics
The judgment also criticises the respondents’ procedural strategy. Judge Olsen said repeated technical objections had delayed the outcome for almost three years. He found there was no irregular step in the creditors’ application and dismissed the respondents’ procedural complaints as attempts to stall enforcement of the settlement.
The order
Judge Olsen granted condonation for the late filing of the respondents’ answering affidavit before ruling for the applicants.
Educor Holdings, A1 Capital, Damelin, Intec College and Lyceum College were ordered, jointly and severally, to pay Redink Rentals (RF) Limited and Tower Investments (Pty) Ltd the remaining R63 508 000, with interest at 11.75% per year from 4 October 2023 until the debt is settled.
The five companies must also pay the applicants’ legal costs, including costs of two counsel where used.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
