Cussons and Others v Kroon (254/98) [2001] ZASCA 69; [2002] 1 All SA 361 (A); 2001 (4) SA 833 (SCA) (28 May 2001)

Cussons and Others v Kroon (254/98) [2001] ZASCA 69; [2002] 1 All SA 361 (A); 2001 (4) SA 833 (SCA) (28 May 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the farm was indeed a partnership asset, as evidenced by the written and oral agreements between the parties. The registration of the farm in the name of one partner was a matter of convenience and did not affect the underlying intention. Section 3(b) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970 did not render the agreement void, as the parties did not intend to transfer an undivided share in the land. The respondent had a personal right against the second appellant, requiring his consent for any sale of the farm. The doctrine of knowledge was applicable because the first and third appellants were aware of the respondent's rights. The sale...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 69
Parties
Appellant: Eugene Christoffel Cussons; Appellant: Gerrit van Pletzen Kroon; Appellant: Albion Administration (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Johannes Francois Kroon
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2001
Case Number
254/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Smalberger, Zulman, Streicher, Mthiyane, Chetty
Legal Topics
Partnership Assets, Sale of Land, Personal Rights, Knowledge Doctrine, Invalidity of Contract, Costs Award
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Partnership Assets Sale of Land Personal Rights Knowledge Doctrine Invalidity of Contract Costs Award

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Christoffel Cussons

Appellant

Gerrit van Pletzen Kroon

Appellant

Albion Administration (Edms) Bpk

Appellant

Johannes Francois Kroon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the farm was a partnership asset between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the sale and transfer of the farm without the respondent's consent was valid.
  3. 3 Whether section 3(b) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970 rendered the partnership agreement void.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the farm was indeed a partnership asset, as evidenced by the written and oral agreements between the parties. The registration of the farm in the name of one partner was a matter of convenience and did not affect the underlying intention. Section 3(b) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970 did not render the agreement void, as the parties did not intend to transfer an undivided share in the land. The respondent had a personal right against the second appellant, requiring his consent for any sale of the farm. The doctrine of knowledge was applicable because the first and third appellants were aware of the respondent's rights. The sale...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs on an attorney and client scale.
  • The sale contract between the second and first appellants is declared void.