Brits v Kommandantsdrift CC and Others (143/2021) [2022] ZASCA 41 (5 April 2022)

Brits v Kommandantsdrift CC and Others (143/2021) [2022] ZASCA 41 (5 April 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that both the 2000 and 2008 contracts of sale were void ab initio due to a common error by all contracting parties regarding the identity of the land sold, which was a material term. The evidence established that all parties believed the wedge was not part of the land being sold, and this mistake was fundamental to the transaction. Brits failed to discharge the onus of proving prescription, as he did not plead or establish the date on which the CC became aware or ought to have become aware of the relevant facts. The CC only became aware of the error in 2013, when Brits sued for occupation, and thus prescription had not run. The high court correctly found...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 41
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Brits; Respondent: Kommandantsdrift CC; Respondent: Nico le Roux; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 April 2022
Case Number
143/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; matter remitted to the high court for determination of the remainder of the issues.
Judges
Saldulker, Dlodlo, Hughes, Musi, Matojane
Legal Topics
Void Contract, Common Error, Prescription Act, Rectification of Title, Unjust Enrichment
Land and Property Civil Procedure Void Contract Common Error Prescription Act Rectification of Title Unjust Enrichment

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Brits

Appellant

Kommandantsdrift CC

Respondent

Nico le Roux

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contracts of sale of land were void due to a common error relating to a material term by all contracting parties.
  2. 2 Whether the claim for re-transfer or rectification of the land was subject to prescription under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  3. 3 Whether the issues agreed between the parties to be adjudicated were fully determined by the high court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that both the 2000 and 2008 contracts of sale were void ab initio due to a common error by all contracting parties regarding the identity of the land sold, which was a material term. The evidence established that all parties believed the wedge was not part of the land being sold, and this mistake was fundamental to the transaction. Brits failed to discharge the onus of proving prescription, as he did not plead or establish the date on which the CC became aware or ought to have become aware of the relevant facts. The CC only became aware of the error in 2013, when Brits sued for occupation, and thus prescription had not run. The high court correctly found...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; matter remitted to the high court for determination of the remainder of the issues.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is remitted to the high court for the determination of the remainder of the issues.