Dirk Swart (Eidendoms) Bpk. v Tommar Beleggings BK (238/90) [1991] ZASCA 186 (29 November 1991)

Dirk Swart (Eidendoms) Bpk. v Tommar Beleggings BK (238/90) [1991] ZASCA 186 (29 November 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant had received a mandate to sell both the immovable property and the hotel business. The evidence showed that the appellant's introduction of the property to the Department of Public Works was the direct and effective cause of the subsequent negotiations and voluntary agreement to sell. The expropriation was used solely as a mechanism to expedite payment at the request of the respondent, and did not alter the fundamentally consensual nature of the transaction. The court distinguished the present facts from the John Wilkinson case, noting that here, the parties reached voluntary consensus on all essential terms before expropriation, which...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 186
Parties
Appellant: Dirk Swart (Eiendoms) Beperk; Respondent: Tommar Beleggings BK
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 1991
Case Number
238/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order in favour of the appellant.
Judges
Joubert, Vivier, Goldstone, Van Coller, Kriegler
Legal Topics
Estate Agent Commission, Effective Cause, Expropriation, Mandate, Property Sale
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Estate Agent Commission Effective Cause Expropriation Mandate Property Sale

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dirk Swart (Eiendoms) Beperk

Appellant

Tommar Beleggings BK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant estate agent had a mandate to sell both the immovable property and the hotel business.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was the effective cause of the sale resulting in expropriation.
  3. 3 Whether the event entitling the appellant to commission occurred under the mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant had received a mandate to sell both the immovable property and the hotel business. The evidence showed that the appellant's introduction of the property to the Department of Public Works was the direct and effective cause of the subsequent negotiations and voluntary agreement to sell. The expropriation was used solely as a mechanism to expedite payment at the request of the respondent, and did not alter the fundamentally consensual nature of the transaction. The court distinguished the present facts from the John Wilkinson case, noting that here, the parties reached voluntary consensus on all essential terms before expropriation, which...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order in favour of the appellant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant the amount of R100,500.00 with interest at 12% per annum calculated from 12 November 1987 until date of payment.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of suit.