Blomerus and Another v Theron (A168/2006) [2009] ZAGPPHC 15 (1 April 2009)

Blomerus and Another v Theron (A168/2006) [2009] ZAGPPHC 15 (1 April 2009)

The court found that although the appellants' attorney negligently allowed the appeal to lapse, the appellants themselves were diligent and intended to prosecute the appeal. Given the strong prospects of success and the importance of the matter, condonation was granted and the appeal reinstated. On the merits, the court held that the property was adequately described and identifiable on the ground, satisfying the requirements of the Alienation of Land Act. However, the agreement was concluded after steps had been taken to establish a township on the property, and thus section 67 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance applied. As a result, the agreement was void and unenforceable....

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 15
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Johannes Blomerus; Appellant: Johanna Catharina Frederika Blomerus; Respondent: Lorinda Theodora Theron
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2009
Case Number
A168/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; agreement declared void under section 67 of the Ordinance; respondent to pay costs.
Judges
B.R. Southwood, J.R. Murphy, G.L. Grobler
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Description of Res Vendita, Section 67 Town Planning Ordinance, Condonation, Enforceability of Sale Agreement
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Description of Res Vendita Section 67 Town Planning Ordinance Condonation Enforceability of Sale Agreement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Johannes Blomerus

Appellant

Johanna Catharina Frederika Blomerus

Appellant

Lorinda Theodora Theron

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written agreement for the sale of immovable property complied with section 2 of the Alienation of Land Act, 68 of 1981.
  2. 2 Whether the property sold (res vendita) was adequately described in the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement was prohibited by section 67 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 15 of 1986.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the appellants' attorney negligently allowed the appeal to lapse, the appellants themselves were diligent and intended to prosecute the appeal. Given the strong prospects of success and the importance of the matter, condonation was granted and the appeal reinstated. On the merits, the court held that the property was adequately described and identifiable on the ground, satisfying the requirements of the Alienation of Land Act. However, the agreement was concluded after steps had been taken to establish a township on the property, and thus section 67 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance applied. As a result, the agreement was void and unenforceable....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; agreement declared void under section 67 of the Ordinance; respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • The appellants' failure to apply timeously for a hearing date is condoned and the appeal is reinstated.
  • The costs order made on 18 June 2007 is set aside.