De Villiers v Potgieter NO and Others (611/05) [2006] ZASCA 142; 2007 (2) SA 311 (SCA) (1 December 2006)

De Villiers v Potgieter NO and Others (611/05) [2006] ZASCA 142; 2007 (2) SA 311 (SCA) (1 December 2006)

The majority held that the respondents, as registered owners of the property, were entitled to an eviction order against the appellant, who failed to establish any lawful right to occupy the property. The appellant's occupation was not based on any valid agreement with Bulpan, and the share agreement had been cancelled without payment of the purchase price or transfer of shares. Even assuming the doctrine of notice applied and the share agreement revived, the transfer to the respondents was not a nullity, and they remained owners until a court set aside the transfer. The appellant's pending action to challenge the cancellation and transfer did not entitle him to remain in occupation. The...

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 142
Parties
Appellant: De Villiers, Andries Nolte; Respondent: Potgieter, P J, NO; Respondent: Potgieter, A C E, NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2006
Case Number
611/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; respondents entitled to eviction order, subject to special costs provisions.
Judges
Streicher, Mlambo, Combrinck
Legal Topics
Eviction, Doctrine of Notice, Transfer of Property, Right of Occupation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Doctrine of Notice Transfer of Property Right of Occupation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

De Villiers, Andries Nolte

Appellant

Potgieter, P J, NO

Respondent

Potgieter, A C E, NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has a lawful right to occupy the property after transfer to the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of notice applies to defeat the respondents' title to the property.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents, as registered owners, are entitled to an eviction order against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the respondents, as registered owners of the property, were entitled to an eviction order against the appellant, who failed to establish any lawful right to occupy the property. The appellant's occupation was not based on any valid agreement with Bulpan, and the share agreement had been cancelled without payment of the purchase price or transfer of shares. Even assuming the doctrine of notice applied and the share agreement revived, the transfer to the respondents was not a nullity, and they remained owners until a court set aside the transfer. The appellant's pending action to challenge the cancellation and transfer did not entitle him to remain in occupation. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; respondents entitled to eviction order, subject to special costs provisions.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs. The 7 day period for eviction runs from the date of this judgment.
  • The respondents shall not be entitled to tax the costs of appeal until the proceedings between the parties and Keeley in the North West High Court have been finally determined.