Fourie v Bekker NO and Others (182/08) [2009] ZASCA 12; [2009] 3 All SA 19 (SCA) (17 March 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZASCA 12
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Harms, Farlam, Navsa, van Heerden, Snyders
- Case number
- 182/08
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Harms, Farlam, Navsa, van Heerden, Snyders
- Case number
- 182/08
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's arguments regarding the invalidity of the sale agreement and the unenforceability of the High Court order were unfounded. The definition of 'subdivide' in the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act did not apply to the facts, as the contract involved a single identified portion of land and not the allocation of undivided shares or multiple contracts. There was no evidence that the necessary survey maps had not been prepared, and the order was sufficiently clear for execution. Any alleged vagueness or impossibility of compliance would only become relevant if the appellant failed to comply and factual disputes arose. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Johanna Susanna Fourie
Appellant Counsel: F W A Danzfuss SCRoelof Abraham Bekker NO
Respondent Counsel: J G van Niekerk SCDawid Bekker NO
RespondentGetruide Petronella Bekker NO
RespondentRegistrar of Deeds, Kimberley
RespondentDepartment of Water Affairs and Forestry
RespondentMr H P A Venter
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the High Court, Kimberley
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sale agreement for the identified portion of land is valid and enforceable.
- 02
Whether the High Court order compelling the appellant to take steps for registration and transfer is sufficiently clear and executable.
- 03
Whether statutory requirements regarding subdivision under the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act were complied with.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the sale agreement was void because the necessary preparatory steps for subdivision and registration of the property had not been completed, nor was it alleged by the trustees that these steps had been taken. Reliance was placed on section 46(1) of the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act, read with the definition of 'subdivide' in section 1. It was further contended that the High Court order was vague and unenforceable, as the required steps and documents for registration were not identified, and that it was impossible for the appellant to comply within the seven-day period stipulated in the order.
- Respondent
- The respondents maintained that the sale agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the statutory requirements for subdivision did not render the contract void. They argued that the definition of 'subdivide' did not apply to the facts, as the contract concerned a single identified portion of land, not the allocation of undivided shares or multiple contracts. They further contended that the order was sufficiently clear and executable, and that there was no evidence that the necessary survey maps had not already been prepared.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Northern Cape Planning and Development Act, Act 7 of 1998
A sale agreement for a portion of land identified on an attached map is valid and enforceable, provided statutory requirements are met.
- 02
Section 1, Northern Cape Planning and Development Act, Act 7 of 1998
Subdivision, as defined in the Act, refers to the allocation of undivided portions with a view to separate registration, typically involving marketing and multiple contracts, not a single sale of an identified portion.
- 03
General principles of civil procedure
Court orders must be sufficiently clear to be executable, but factual disputes regarding compliance arise only if there is an allegation of non-compliance.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's arguments regarding the invalidity of the sale agreement and the unenforceability of the High Court order were unfounded. The definition of 'subdivide' in the Northern Cape Planning and Development Act did not apply to the facts, as the contract involved a single identified portion of land and not the allocation of undivided shares or multiple contracts. There was no evidence that the necessary survey maps had not been prepared, and the order was sufficiently clear for execution. Any alleged vagueness or impossibility of compliance would only become relevant if the appellant failed to comply and factual disputes arose. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- Even if the survey map had not yet been prepared, it is highly unlikely that the appellant or the registrar would be required to perform the impossible.
- The alleged vagueness of the order would only become a factual issue if non-compliance was alleged.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
UITSPRAAK
Saak nommer 182/08
No precedential significance
In die saak tussen:
JOHANNA
SUSANNA FOURIE APPELLANT
en
ROELOF
ABRAHAM BEKKER N O EERSTE
RESPONDENT
DAWID
BEKKER N O TWEEDE RESPONDENT
GETRUIDE
PETRONELLA BEKKER N O DERDE RESPONDENT
DIE REGISTRATEUR VAN AKTES, KIMBERLEY VIERDE RESPONDENT
DEPARTEMENT
VAN WATERWESE EN BOSBOU VYFDE RESPONDENT
MNR
H P A VENTER SESDE RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Fourie v Bekker NO (182/08) [2009] ZASCA 12 (17
Maart) 2009.
CORAM: HARMS AP, FARLAM, NAVSA, VAN HEERDEN et SNYDERS ARR
AANGEHOOR: 3 MAART 2009
GELEWER: 17 MAART 2009
OPSOMMING: Koopkontrak ten opsigte van stuk grond geïdentifiseer op aangehegte kaart â geldigheid van kontrak â uitvoerbaarheid van hofbevel.
_______________
BEVEL
Op appèl van: Die Hooggeregshof, Kimberley (sittende as 'n hof van eerste instansie).
Die volgende bevel word gemaak:
Die appèl word van die hand gewys met koste.
FARLAM AR (Harms AP, Navsa, van Heerden et Snyders JJA stem saam)
[1] Op 22 Desember 2006 het Majiedt R in die Hooggeregshof te Kimberley 'n bevel gegee teen die huidige appellant wat haar gelas het (i) om alle stappe te doen en dokumente te onderteken wat nodig mag wees om 'n sekere onroerende eiendom te registreer in naam van die eerste drie respondente, wat die trustees is van die Roelie Bekker Trust (en na wie ek sal verwys as 'die trustees'), en (ii) om alle stappe te doen en dokumente te teken om teen registrasie van oordrag van die betrokke eiendom in naam van die trustees ook 79 hektaar waterregte aan hulle oor te dra. In terme van die bevel is die Griffier van die Hooggeregshof gemagtig en gelas om al sodanige stappe te doen en dokumente te teken namens en ten behoewe van die appellant indien sy sou versuim om binne sewe dae na die datum van die bevel daaraan gevolg te gee.
[2] Die volgende beskrywing is gegee van die onroerende eiendom waarna verwys is in die bevel: 'Die Gedeelte van Erf 1534, Gedeelte van Erf 341, Douglas, geleë in die Munisipaliteit van Douglas, administratiewe distrik Herbert en soos aangedui op die sketsplan
aangeheg by die koopooreenkoms gedateer 9 Julie 2003'.
[3] In sy uitspraak het die belese regter in die hof benede die verwere wat geopper is in die appellant se beantwoordende verklaring verwerp. Aangesien advokaat Danzfuss, wat namens die appellant in hierdie hof verskyn het, nie op hierdie verwere gesteun het nie is dit onnodig om oorweging aan hulle te skenk in hierdie uitspraak. Hy het twee punte in hierdie hof geargumenteer. Die eerste was dat die koopkontrak nietig was omdat
die nodige voorbereidende stappe tot die uiteindelike registrasie van die eiendom (wat na onderverdeling 'n onderverdeelde deel van Erf 1534 sal wees) nog nie verrig is nie of dat dit nie deur die trustees beweer is dat dit reeds gedoen is nie. Vir hierdie submissie het hy gesteun op artikel 46(1) van die 'Northern Cape Planning and Development Act, Act 7 of 1998', gelees met die omskrywing van 'subdivide' in artikel 1 van die Wet.
[4] Artikel 46(1) van die Wet lui:
'(1) No person, including the State, shall subdivide any land within the Province of the Northern Cape except in accordance with an
application approved in terms of the provisions of this Chapter or the Development Facilitation Act, 1995 (Act 67 of 1995).'
[5] Die omskrywing van 'subdivide' in artikel 1 van die Wet lui:
'"subdivide" in relation to land, means to subdivide the land, whether by means of:
survey; or
the allocation with a view to the separate registration of land units, of undivided portions thereof, in a manner which includes the marketing and conclusion of contracts with regard to the alienation, sale or exchange of portions of the property; or
its preparation for subdivision.'
[6] Advokaat Danzfuss het betoog dat para (b) van die omskrywing van 'subdivide' van toepassing is en dat dit duidelik is dat onderverdeling, in terme van die omskrywing, kan plaasvind voor registrasie van die afsonderlike eenheid waar dit toegeken is in 'n vervreemdingsakte met die oog daarop dat dit as afsonderlike deel geregistreer sal word. Hierdie betoog is na my mening nie korrek nie. Para (b) van die omskrywing is van toepassing waar onverdeelde dele van 'n eiendom toegeken word met die oog op die afsonderlike registrasie van grondeenhede op 'n wyse wat die bemarking en sluit van kontrakte met betrekking tot die vervreemding, verkoop of ruil van dele van die eiendom insluit. Die sluit van 'n enkele koopkontrak vir die oordrag van 'n geïdentifiseerde stuk grond wat deel is van 'n groter stuk kan nie as 'n toekenning beskou word nie. Daar is ook in 'n geval soos hierdie geen sprake van bemarking en sluit van kontrakte (in die meervoud) nie. Ek is derhalwe tevrede dat advokaat Danzfuss se eerste punt nie kan slaag nie.
[7] Sy tweede punt was dat die bevel wat uitgereik is deur Majiedt R vaag en onuitvoerbaar is. Die stappe wat gedoen moet word en die dokumente wat onderteken moet word voordat die betrokke eiendom in die naam van die trustees geregistreer kan word, het hy betoog, word nie in die hofbevel geïdentifiseer nie. Hy het verder geargumenteer dat die bevel onuitvoerbaar is omdat die appellant nie alle stappe kan doen en dokumente teken wat nodig mag wees vir registrasie van transport in die naam van die trustees, binne die sewe dae-tydperk wat in die bevel neergelê is nie.
[8] In hierdie verband het hy veral verwys na die feit dat 'n landmeter die nodige kaarte moet opstel en, in die besonder, die onderverdelingskaart. Hierdie submissie is na my mening ook nie korrek nie. Nêrens in die stukke word dit gesê dat die landmeter nie alreeds die nodige kaarte opgestel het nie. Inteendeel, dit word in die funderende eedsverklaring van die eerste respondent gesê dat die appellant se man beweer het dat die opmetings van die grond wat verkoop is, verkeerd gedoen is. Die appellant het hierdie stelling in haar beantwoordende verklaring erken. Dit blyk nie uit die stukke dat die bevel nie uitvoerbaar is nie. Wat die beweerde vaagheid betref, sal dit 'n feitekwessie wees (wat eers sal ontstaan indien dit beweer word dat die appellant versuim het om te
voldoen aan paragraaf 1 van die bevel), watter stappe en dokumente nodig mag wees om die betrokke eiendom te registreer in die naam van die trustees. Selfs as die kaart nog nie opgestel is nie, is dit hoogsonwaarskynlik dat die appellante of die griffier versoek sou word om die onmoontlike te verrig.
[9] Na my mening kan die appél nie slaag nie.
[10] Die volgende bevel word gemaak:
Die appél word van die hand gewys met koste.
....................
IG FARLAM
APPèLREGTER
VERSKYNINGS:
VIR DIE APPELLANT: Adv F W A Danzfuss SC
Opdrag deur
Mnre Engelsman, Magabane Ing, Kimberley
Lovius Block-Prokureurs, Bloemfontein
VIR DIE RESPONDENT: Adv J G van Niekerk SC
Duncan & Rothman, Kimberley
Webbers, Bloemfontein
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.