Goosen and Another v Wiehahn and Others (761/2018) [2019] ZASCA 137; 2020 (2) SA 341 (SCA) (1 October 2019)

Goosen and Another v Wiehahn and Others (761/2018) [2019] ZASCA 137; 2020 (2) SA 341 (SCA) (1 October 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right conferred by clause 2.3 of the will was a personal right regulated by testamentary disposition, not a pactum de contrahendo. The court found that the Alienation of Land Act's formalities did not apply to such testamentary rights, and the executrix was bound to offer the farm to the first appellant in accordance with the will. The sale agreement was valid, and the application to declare it null and void was misconceived. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the will must give effect to the testator's wishes and that the right to purchase was enforceable as a succession right, not as a contractual option requiring compliance with...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 137
Parties
Appellant: Gert Johannes Scheepers Goosen; Appellant: Johanna Magrietha Goosen; Respondent: Elsa Wilhelmina Wiehahn; Respondent: Abraham Gerhardus Geldenhuys; Respondent: Phillipentia Jacomina Jordaan; Respondent: Elretha Huyshamen NO; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Kimberley; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Kimberley
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2019
Case Number
761/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Northern Cape Division of the High Court, Kimberley
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ponnan, Cachalia, Zondi, Dambuza, Nicholls
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Wills, Testamentary Conditions, Alienation of Land Act, Option to Purchase, Succession, Personal Rights Vs Real Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interpretation of Wills Testamentary Conditions Alienation of Land Act Option to Purchase Succession Personal Rights Vs Real Rights

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

Parties

Gert Johannes Scheepers Goosen

Appellant

Johanna Magrietha Goosen

Appellant

Elsa Wilhelmina Wiehahn

Respondent

Abraham Gerhardus Geldenhuys

Respondent

Phillipentia Jacomina Jordaan

Respondent

Elretha Huyshamen NO

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Kimberley

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Kimberley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Northern Cape Division of the High Court, Kimberley

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right granted in clause 2.3 of the will constitutes a valid option to purchase subject to the Alienation of Land Act.
  2. 2 Whether the sale agreement for Farm Hunites is null and void due to non-compliance with statutory formalities.
  3. 3 Whether the right conferred by the will is a pactum de contrahendo or a testamentary disposition regulated by succession.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right conferred by clause 2.3 of the will was a personal right regulated by testamentary disposition, not a pactum de contrahendo. The court found that the Alienation of Land Act's formalities did not apply to such testamentary rights, and the executrix was bound to offer the farm to the first appellant in accordance with the will. The sale agreement was valid, and the application to declare it null and void was misconceived. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the will must give effect to the testator's wishes and that the right to purchase was enforceable as a succession right, not as a contractual option requiring compliance with...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with: 'The application is dismissed with costs.'