Investgold CC v Uys and Another (686/2013) [2014] ZASCA 166 (1 October 2014)

Investgold CC v Uys and Another (686/2013) [2014] ZASCA 166 (1 October 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Investgold had implemented a system for delivery of coins in cash sales that was designed to pass ownership upon delivery. The coins were delivered to Uys by Davids, Investgold's stock controller, with the intention to transfer ownership, and Uys accepted them with the intention of becoming owner. The brokers' role was limited to counter-signing delivery notes and did not constitute the directing mind for the transfer of ownership. The subsequent theft by Hugo did not vitiate the intention to transfer ownership at the time of delivery. The court held that Investgold discharged its obligations under the sale and that the claim for specific performance...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 166
Parties
Appellant: Investgold CC; Respondent: Dirk Uys; Respondent: Mariesa Troskie
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2014
Case Number
686/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside and plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Bosielo, Tshiqi, Saldulker, Mocumie, Gorven
Legal Topics
Transfer of Ownership, Specific Performance, Sale of Goods, Intention to Transfer Dominium
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Transfer of Ownership Specific Performance Sale of Goods Intention to Transfer Dominium

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investgold CC

Appellant

Dirk Uys

Respondent

Mariesa Troskie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ownership of the gold coins passed to the purchaser upon delivery and payment.
  2. 2 Whether the seller's intention to transfer ownership was vitiated by the subsequent theft by its employee.
  3. 3 Whether the physical delivery constituted genuine delivery with the intention to transfer ownership.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Investgold had implemented a system for delivery of coins in cash sales that was designed to pass ownership upon delivery. The coins were delivered to Uys by Davids, Investgold's stock controller, with the intention to transfer ownership, and Uys accepted them with the intention of becoming owner. The brokers' role was limited to counter-signing delivery notes and did not constitute the directing mind for the transfer of ownership. The subsequent theft by Hugo did not vitiate the intention to transfer ownership at the time of delivery. The court held that Investgold discharged its obligations under the sale and that the claim for specific performance...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside and plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel where employed.
  • The order of the trial court is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claim with costs.