Lombaard v Droprop CC and Others (5895/08) [2009] ZAKZPHC 52 (18 June 2009)

Lombaard v Droprop CC and Others (5895/08) [2009] ZAKZPHC 52 (18 June 2009)

The court found that the use of the word 'certain' in the property description created ambiguity and failed to identify the land with reasonable certainty, thus not meeting the requirements of section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. Furthermore, the court held that a member of a close corporation acting as agent in a land sale transaction must have written authority from the corporation, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act and section 54 of the Close Corporation Act. Without such written authority, the contract is null and void. Both findings were in favour of the respondents, and the application for leave to appeal was considered to have reasonable prospects of...

Citation
[2009] ZAKZPHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Jan Antonie Lombaard; Respondent: Droprop CC; Respondent: Dropathy Preethepaul; Respondent: Dharumdaw Preethepaul; Respondent: Omesh Preethepaul
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2009
Case Number
5895/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal granted.
Judges
Ndlovu
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act Compliance, Close Corporation Agency, Property Description Requirements, Written Authority for Land Sale
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Alienation of Land Act Compliance Close Corporation Agency Property Description Requirements Written Authority for Land Sale

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Antonie Lombaard

Applicant

Droprop CC

Respondent

Dropathy Preethepaul

Respondent

Dharumdaw Preethepaul

Respondent

Omesh Preethepaul

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the inclusion of the word 'certain' in the property description in a lease agreement render the description non-compliant with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981?
  2. 2 Does a member of a close corporation acting as agent require written authority under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act to conclude a sale of land on behalf of the corporation?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the use of the word 'certain' in the property description created ambiguity and failed to identify the land with reasonable certainty, thus not meeting the requirements of section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. Furthermore, the court held that a member of a close corporation acting as agent in a land sale transaction must have written authority from the corporation, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act and section 54 of the Close Corporation Act. Without such written authority, the contract is null and void. Both findings were in favour of the respondents, and the application for leave to appeal was considered to have reasonable prospects of...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal granted.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
  • Costs of the application shall be costs in the course of the appeal.