Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Puling and Another, Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Ramokgopa (802/2016, 803/2016) [2017] ZASCA 141; 2017 (6) SA 373 (SCA) (2 October 2017)

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Puling and Another, Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Ramokgopa (802/2016, 803/2016) [2017] ZASCA 141; 2017 (6) SA 373 (SCA) (2 October 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the condition registered against the title deed comprised two clauses: the first, obliging the transferee and successors to build within a prescribed period, created a real right and restriction on ownership. The second, entitling the developer to claim re-transfer against repayment of the purchase price, was a personal right akin to an option to purchase, enforceable only by the developer and not binding on third parties. The two clauses were not inseparably bound as a composite restriction on ownership. Consequently, the right to claim re-transfer constituted a 'debt' under the Prescription Act, subject to a three-year prescription period. As the...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 141
Parties
Appellant: Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Puling Puling; Respondent: Tapiwanashe Puling; Respondent: Petrus Kgosi Ramokgopa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2017
Case Number
802/2016, 803/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs in both cases.
Judges
Leach, Tshiqi, Seriti, Tsoka, Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Real Vs Personal Rights, Title Deed Conditions, Option to Purchase, Retransfer of Property
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prescription Act Real Vs Personal Rights Title Deed Conditions Option to Purchase Retransfer of Property

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Puling Puling

Respondent

Tapiwanashe Puling

Respondent

Petrus Kgosi Ramokgopa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim for re-transfer of immovable property is a personal right subject to prescription or a real right not subject to prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the registered condition entitling the developer to claim re-transfer is enforceable after the lapse of the prescribed period.
  3. 3 Whether the claim for re-transfer constitutes a 'debt' under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the condition registered against the title deed comprised two clauses: the first, obliging the transferee and successors to build within a prescribed period, created a real right and restriction on ownership. The second, entitling the developer to claim re-transfer against repayment of the purchase price, was a personal right akin to an option to purchase, enforceable only by the developer and not binding on third parties. The two clauses were not inseparably bound as a composite restriction on ownership. Consequently, the right to claim re-transfer constituted a 'debt' under the Prescription Act, subject to a three-year prescription period. As the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs in both cases.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs in each case.