Knysna Hotel CC v Coetzee NO (396/96) [1997] ZASCA 114; 1998 (2) SA 743 (SCA); [1998] 1 All SA 261 (A); (1 December 1997)

Knysna Hotel CC v Coetzee NO (396/96) [1997] ZASCA 114; 1998 (2) SA 743 (SCA); [1998] 1 All SA 261 (A); (1 December 1997)

The court held that the respondent's obligation under the contract was to procure registration of transfer of the property into the appellant's name, not to guarantee the passage of ownership. All formalities for transfer were complied with, and the registration was accepted by the Registrar of Deeds on 21 September 1990. The registration was never set aside or attacked in court, and thus remained valid. Any outstanding balance of the purchase price became due on that date, and prescription commenced from then. The respondent's argument that ownership only passed upon Cohen's ratification was rejected, as the contract did not require the transfer of ownership, only registration. The court...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 114
Parties
Appellant: Knysna Hotel CC; Respondent: Sarel Albertus Coetzee N.O.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 1997
Case Number
396/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Cape Division on Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal upheld; the special plea of prescription is sustained with costs.
Judges
Eksteen, FH Grosskopf, Nienaber, Olivier, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Registration of Transfer, Sale of Immovable Property, Special Plea, Curatorship, Validity of Transfer
Civil Procedure Land and Property Prescription Act Registration of Transfer Sale of Immovable Property Special Plea Curatorship Validity of Transfer

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

Parties

Knysna Hotel CC

Appellant

Sarel Albertus Coetzee N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Cape Division on Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim for the outstanding purchase price was prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the registration of transfer on 21 September 1990 constituted performance under the contract, triggering the running of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was prevented by vis maior from interrupting prescription until ratification of transfer by Cohen.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent's obligation under the contract was to procure registration of transfer of the property into the appellant's name, not to guarantee the passage of ownership. All formalities for transfer were complied with, and the registration was accepted by the Registrar of Deeds on 21 September 1990. The registration was never set aside or attacked in court, and thus remained valid. Any outstanding balance of the purchase price became due on that date, and prescription commenced from then. The respondent's argument that ownership only passed upon Cohen's ratification was rejected, as the contract did not require the transfer of ownership, only registration. The court...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; the special plea of prescription is sustained with costs.

Orders

  • The order of the court a quo is amended to read: 'The special plea is upheld with costs.'