Eskom v Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk (435/90) [1992] ZASCA 36; 1992 (2) SA 725 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 64 (A) (26 March 1992)

Eskom v Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk (435/90) [1992] ZASCA 36; 1992 (2) SA 725 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 64 (A) (26 March 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove it acquired ownership of the steel structure. The requirements for fictitious delivery (traditio longa manu) were not satisfied, as the respondent did not have control or the right to exercise control over the structure. The exclusion of the structure from the lease and the lack of arrangements for delivery meant that the respondent could not deal with the structure at its pleasure. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to an order for delivery of the structure. The court also granted the appellant's applications for condonation, as there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 36
Parties
Appellant: Eskom; Respondent: Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 1992
Case Number
435/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Botha, Hefer, Vivier, Van den Heever, Howie
Legal Topics
Rei Vindicatio, Ownership Transfer, Delivery Longa Manu, Condonation Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rei Vindicatio Ownership Transfer Delivery Longa Manu Condonation Application

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

Parties

Eskom

Appellant

Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent acquired ownership of the steel structure through delivery.
  2. 2 Whether fictitious delivery (traditio longa manu) occurred in favour of the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to an order for delivery of the structure.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove it acquired ownership of the steel structure. The requirements for fictitious delivery (traditio longa manu) were not satisfied, as the respondent did not have control or the right to exercise control over the structure. The exclusion of the structure from the lease and the lack of arrangements for delivery meant that the respondent could not deal with the structure at its pleasure. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to an order for delivery of the structure. The court also granted the appellant's applications for condonation, as there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applications for condonation are granted, and the appellant is ordered to pay the costs thereof on an unopposed basis.
  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel, except for the costs of the condonation applications.