Geue and Another v Van Der Lith and Another (625/02) [2003] ZASCA 118; [2003] 4 All SA 553 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 333 (SCA) (20 November 2003)

Geue and Another v Van Der Lith and Another (625/02) [2003] ZASCA 118; [2003] 4 All SA 553 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 333 (SCA) (20 November 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the agreement for the sale of a portion of agricultural land, even though subject to a suspensive condition requiring ministerial consent, falls squarely within the prohibition of section 3(e)(i) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970. The extended definition of 'sale' in the Act, which includes sales subject to suspensive conditions, was specifically intended to prevent such agreements from circumventing the statutory requirement of ministerial consent. The absence of an express nullity provision does not preclude invalidity; the legislative intent, as interpreted from the Act and supporting case law, is that agreements concluded in...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 118
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Heinrich Geue; Appellant: Montserrat Maria Geue; Respondent: Pieter Blomerus Notling Van Der Lith; Respondent: Wandrag & Horn Incorporated
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2003
Case Number
625/02
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; agreement declared null and void; repayment ordered; counter-application dismissed.
Judges
MPATI, STREICHER, BRAND, CONRADIE, HEHER
Legal Topics
Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Statutory Invalidity, Suspensive Condition, Ministerial Consent, Contract Nullity
Land and Property Civil Procedure Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act Statutory Invalidity Suspensive Condition Ministerial Consent Contract Nullity

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Heinrich Geue

Appellant

Montserrat Maria Geue

Appellant

Pieter Blomerus Notling Van Der Lith

Respondent

Wandrag & Horn Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a sale of a portion of agricultural land, subject to a suspensive condition that ministerial consent be obtained, contravene section 3(e)(i) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970?
  2. 2 Is such an agreement rendered null and void by the Act despite the suspensive condition?
  3. 3 Does the absence of an express nullity provision in the Act affect the validity of the agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the agreement for the sale of a portion of agricultural land, even though subject to a suspensive condition requiring ministerial consent, falls squarely within the prohibition of section 3(e)(i) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970. The extended definition of 'sale' in the Act, which includes sales subject to suspensive conditions, was specifically intended to prevent such agreements from circumventing the statutory requirement of ministerial consent. The absence of an express nullity provision does not preclude invalidity; the legislative intent, as interpreted from the Act and supporting case law, is that agreements concluded in...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; agreement declared null and void; repayment ordered; counter-application dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Court a quo is set aside and replaced with: (1) The agreement of sale entered into between the first and second applicants and the first respondent, dated 19 June 2001, in terms of which an undivided portion of the farm Canterbury 254 was sold to the applicants, is declared null and void.