Lord Investment (Pty) Ltd. v Mocasta Investment (Pty) Ltd. (328/84) [1986] ZASCA 25 (24 March 1986)

Lord Investment (Pty) Ltd. v Mocasta Investment (Pty) Ltd. (328/84) [1986] ZASCA 25 (24 March 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent was entitled to restitution of its immovable properties, as the transfers to Verwey and subsequently to the appellant were fraudulent and void. The appellant could not acquire better title than the transferor, who had no valid title due to fraud. Registration in the deeds registry does not cure the defect where the transferor's title is null. The appellant's argument based on the abstract theory and bona fide purchase failed, as the law does not protect a purchaser who acquires property from a fraudulent transferor. The refusal to admit the appellant's late affidavit did not constitute a procedural irregularity warranting remittal, as...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 25
Parties
Appellant: Lord Investments (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Mocasta Investments (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 1986
Case Number
328/84
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Viljoen, Hefer, Smalberger
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Transfer, Restitutio in Integrum, Bona Fide Purchaser, Deeds Registry, Ownership, Exceptio Doli
Land and Property Civil Procedure Fraudulent Transfer Restitutio in Integrum Bona Fide Purchaser Deeds Registry Ownership Exceptio Doli

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Investments (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Mocasta Investments (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acquired good title to immovable property transferred through fraudulent transactions.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to admit the appellant's late affidavit constituted a procedural irregularity warranting remittal.
  3. 3 Whether registration in the deeds registry confers indefeasible title on a bona fide purchaser where the transferor lacked title due to fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent was entitled to restitution of its immovable properties, as the transfers to Verwey and subsequently to the appellant were fraudulent and void. The appellant could not acquire better title than the transferor, who had no valid title due to fraud. Registration in the deeds registry does not cure the defect where the transferor's title is null. The appellant's argument based on the abstract theory and bona fide purchase failed, as the law does not protect a purchaser who acquires property from a fraudulent transferor. The refusal to admit the appellant's late affidavit did not constitute a procedural irregularity warranting remittal, as...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the Witwatersrand Local Division stands, requiring retransfer of the properties to the respondent and cancellation of the mortgage bond.