Kriel NO and Another v Le Roux (52/98) [2000] ZASCA 6; [2000] 2 All SA 65 (SCA) (22 March 2000)

Kriel NO and Another v Le Roux (52/98) [2000] ZASCA 6; [2000] 2 All SA 65 (SCA) (22 March 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract and annexed sketch plan, together with objective evidence such as municipal plans and existing boundaries, allow the property to be identified with reasonable certainty, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The court found that the description, though inelegant, was sufficient and that the boundaries could be determined without recourse to inadmissible evidence. The appeal was upheld, condonation for late filing was granted due to reasonable explanation, and a special costs order was made against the appellants for unnecessary inclusion of extra volumes in the appeal record.

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 6
Parties
Appellant: Hermanus Jacobus Kriel N O; Appellant: Johannes Jacobus van Huyssteen N O; Respondent: F J Le Roux
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2000
Case Number
52/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The contract of sale is declared valid. Condonation granted for late filing. Special costs order made against appellants for unnecessary documents. Matter remitted to the court a quo for continuation.
Judges
Hefer, Smalberger, Vivier, Grosskopf, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Formalities of Contract, Identification of Property, Condonation, Costs Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sale of Land Formalities of Contract Identification of Property Condonation Costs Orders

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hermanus Jacobus Kriel N O

Appellant

Johannes Jacobus van Huyssteen N O

Appellant

F J Le Roux

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written contract of sale of land is valid under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.
  2. 2 Whether the property sold can be identified from the contract and annexed sketch plan without recourse to inadmissible evidence.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract and annexed sketch plan, together with objective evidence such as municipal plans and existing boundaries, allow the property to be identified with reasonable certainty, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The court found that the description, though inelegant, was sufficient and that the boundaries could be determined without recourse to inadmissible evidence. The appeal was upheld, condonation for late filing was granted due to reasonable explanation, and a special costs order was made against the appellants for unnecessary inclusion of extra volumes in the appeal record.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The contract of sale is declared valid. Condonation granted for late filing. Special costs order made against appellants for unnecessary documents. Matter remitted to the court a quo for continuation.

Orders

  • The appellants' application for condonation is granted, with all costs of the application to be paid by the appellants.
  • The appeal is upheld with costs, subject to the special costs order below.