De Ujfalussy v De Ujfalussy (673/87) [1989] ZASCA 9; [1989] 2 All SA 279 (A) (16 March 1989)

De Ujfalussy v De Ujfalussy (673/87) [1989] ZASCA 9; [1989] 2 All SA 279 (A) (16 March 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the option to purchase contained in the consent paper was a true option to purchase in the commercial sense, conferring on the respondent a right to purchase the appellant's half-share in Berg-en-Dal for R60,000 before 31 August 1985. The exercise of this option by the respondent's attorneys was invalid because they did not have written authority from the respondent, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The fact that the option was incorporated into a consent paper made an order of court did not alter its contractual nature or exempt it from the statutory formalities. The respondent's application to compel transfer was...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 9
Parties
Appellant: Istvan De Ujfalussy; Respondent: Ilona De Ujfalussy
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 1989
Case Number
673/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Joubert, Hoexter, Van Heerden, Nestadt, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Judicial Separation, Community of Property, Enforcement of Court Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Judicial Separation Community of Property Enforcement of Court Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Istvan De Ujfalussy

Appellant

Ilona De Ujfalussy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exercise of an option to purchase immovable property by the respondent's attorneys was valid without written authority under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.
  2. 2 Whether the incorporation of a consent paper into a decree of judicial separation alters the contractual nature of the option to purchase property.
  3. 3 Whether the formalities of the Alienation of Land Act apply to the exercise of an option contained in a consent paper made an order of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the option to purchase contained in the consent paper was a true option to purchase in the commercial sense, conferring on the respondent a right to purchase the appellant's half-share in Berg-en-Dal for R60,000 before 31 August 1985. The exercise of this option by the respondent's attorneys was invalid because they did not have written authority from the respondent, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. The fact that the option was incorporated into a consent paper made an order of court did not alter its contractual nature or exempt it from the statutory formalities. The respondent's application to compel transfer was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is altered to read: 'The Application is dismissed with costs.'