De Klerk and Another v Steven-Lee Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another (297/12) [2013] ZASCA 54 (4 April 2013)

De Klerk and Another v Steven-Lee Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another (297/12) [2013] ZASCA 54 (4 April 2013)

Clause 15.1 of the sale agreements did not create a suspensive condition but rather imposed a contractual obligation on the developer to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the appropriate local authority, which is the municipality, not Rand Water. The developer fulfilled this obligation prior to transfer, as evidenced by the municipality's letter confirming compliance with water and sanitation criteria. Any subsequent failures by the municipality or Rand Water do not constitute breach by the developer, nor do they entitle the appellants to cancel the agreements or claim re-transfer. No tacit term entitling the appellants to construct dwellings within a reasonable time can be...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 54
Parties
Appellant: Eugene Bernhard De Klerk; Appellant: Tanya De Klerk; Respondent: Steven-Lee Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2013
Case Number
297/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mthiyane, Brand, Lewis, Van der Merwe, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Sale of Immovable Property, Suspensive Condition, Tacit Term, Contractual Interpretation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sale of Immovable Property Suspensive Condition Tacit Term Contractual Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene Bernhard De Klerk

Appellant

Tanya De Klerk

Appellant

Steven-Lee Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does clause 15.1 of the sale agreements create a suspensive condition?
  2. 2 Who qualifies as the 'appropriate local authority' under clause 15.1?
  3. 3 Was there non-performance by the developer under clause 15.1?

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 15.1 of the sale agreements did not create a suspensive condition but rather imposed a contractual obligation on the developer to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the appropriate local authority, which is the municipality, not Rand Water. The developer fulfilled this obligation prior to transfer, as evidenced by the municipality's letter confirming compliance with water and sanitation criteria. Any subsequent failures by the municipality or Rand Water do not constitute breach by the developer, nor do they entitle the appellants to cancel the agreements or claim re-transfer. No tacit term entitling the appellants to construct dwellings within a reasonable time can be...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs of two counsel are not awarded.