Landboukredietraad v Vrystaat Lewendehawe and Others (121/89) [1989] ZASCA 120 (28 September 1989)

Landboukredietraad v Vrystaat Lewendehawe and Others (121/89) [1989] ZASCA 120 (28 September 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the wording of section 176 of the Cooperatives Act is clear and unambiguous: the provisions of Chapter IX, including the statutory right of pledge and restrictions on alienation, do not affect any right or power of the State or Minister under the Landboukrediet Act. Accordingly, the agreements entered into by the insolvent farmers with the Minister under section 38(1) of the Landboukrediet Act validly transferred ownership of the livestock to the State, regardless of the cooperative's prior statutory pledge. The cooperative's argument that its pledge should take precedence or that the agreements were invalid was rejected. The proceeds from the sale of...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 120
Parties
Appellant: Landboukredietraad; Respondent: Vrystaat Lewendehawe Kooperasie Bpk; Respondent: Hendrik Johannes Philippus de Klerk; Respondent: Harold Zinman NNO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 1989
Case Number
121/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Orange Free State Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced.
Judges
Joubert, Hefer, Nestadt, Kumleben, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Statutory Pandrecht, Priority of Security Rights, Interpretation of Statutes, Insolvency Distribution
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Statutory Pandrecht Priority of Security Rights Interpretation of Statutes Insolvency Distribution

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Landboukredietraad

Appellant

Vrystaat Lewendehawe Kooperasie Bpk

Respondent

Hendrik Johannes Philippus de Klerk

Respondent

Harold Zinman NNO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Orange Free State Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory right of pledge (pandreg) held by the cooperative over the livestock of the insolvent farmers prevails over the State's ownership acquired under the Landboukrediet Act.
  2. 2 Whether the agreements entered into by the insolvent farmers with the Minister of Agriculture under section 38 of the Landboukrediet Act are valid and enforceable in respect of the livestock.
  3. 3 Whether the proceeds from the sale of the livestock should be applied first to satisfy the claims of the Landboukredietraad or the cooperative.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the wording of section 176 of the Cooperatives Act is clear and unambiguous: the provisions of Chapter IX, including the statutory right of pledge and restrictions on alienation, do not affect any right or power of the State or Minister under the Landboukrediet Act. Accordingly, the agreements entered into by the insolvent farmers with the Minister under section 38(1) of the Landboukrediet Act validly transferred ownership of the livestock to the State, regardless of the cooperative's prior statutory pledge. The cooperative's argument that its pledge should take precedence or that the agreements were invalid was rejected. The proceeds from the sale of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of the appearance on 16 May 1989.
  • The order of the court a quo is replaced with the following: (a) The net proceeds from the sale of the livestock shall be applied by the trustees of the insolvent estates of D C J Keyter and M G Keyter in the first instance to satisfy the claims of the Landboukredietraad against the said insolvent estates. (b) The...