Marais v Van Deventer NO and Others (1671/07) [2008] ZANCHC 44 (26 September 2008)
- Citation
- [2008] ZANCHC 44
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Majiedt R
- Case number
- 1671/07
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Majiedt R
- Case number
- 1671/07
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the trust, as owner of the property, cannot be impoverished by making improvements to its own property. South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action for owners in these circumstances; enrichment actions are available only to bona fide possessors or occupiers who make improvements without an agreement. Ownership of immovable property passes only upon registration, and until such registration, the trust remains the owner. Therefore, the conditional counterclaim based on enrichment must fail as it does not meet the requirements for an enrichment action. The exception is upheld and the conditional counterclaim is set aside.
Court disposition
Exception upheld; conditional counterclaim set aside; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The exception is upheld.
- The conditional counterclaim of the first to fourth respondents is set aside.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Marais D F
Applicant Counsel: Adv W CoetzeeVan Deventer AH (NO) & 4 Others
Respondent Counsel: Adv M H Wessels (SC)Amounts and remedies
- Value of Improvements Alleged by Respondents: ZAR 280,000
- Increase in Market Value Alleged by Respondents: ZAR 300,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Conditional Counterclaim
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conditional counterclaim based on enrichment is sustainable in law.
- 02
Whether a trust, as owner of property, can claim enrichment against a purchaser for improvements made to its own property.
- 03
Whether the requirements for an enrichment action are met in the circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the trust, as owner of the property, cannot be impoverished by making improvements to its own property. The applicant submitted that enrichment actions are only available to bona fide possessors or occupiers who make improvements without an agreement, and not to owners. The applicant further contended that ownership of immovable property only passes upon registration, and until then, the trust remains the owner and cannot claim enrichment for improvements it made.
- Respondent
- The respondents, as trustees of the trust, argued that if the court finds an enforceable agreement exists and orders transfer of the property, the applicant will be unjustly enriched at the expense of the trust due to improvements made to the property. They submitted that there is a general tendency in South African law towards recognition of a general enrichment action and that their conditional counterclaim satisfies the four requirements for enrichment: enrichment of the applicant, impoverishment of the trust, enrichment at the expense of the trust, and absence of legal cause.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
St Helena Primary School & Another v MEC, Dept of Education, Free State Province & Another 2007 (4) SA 16 (O)
There is no general enrichment action in South African law; enrichment actions are based on specific legal grounds.
- 02
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [17]; Kudu Granite Operations (Pty) Ltd v Caterna Ltd 2003 (5) SA 193 (SCA) para [17]
To succeed in an enrichment action, a claimant must prove enrichment of the defendant, impoverishment of the claimant, enrichment at the expense of the claimant, and absence of legal cause.
- 03
Terblanche NO en andere 2002 (6) SA 132 (NK) para [22]; Registrasie van Aktes Wet 47 van 1937, section 16
Ownership of immovable property passes only upon registration in the deeds office.
- 04
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [12]
A bona fide possessor or occupier who makes useful or necessary improvements to another's property may have an enrichment claim, but not the owner for improvements to its own property.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the trust, as owner of the property, cannot be impoverished by making improvements to its own property. South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action for owners in these circumstances; enrichment actions are available only to bona fide possessors or occupiers who make improvements without an agreement. Ownership of immovable property passes only upon registration, and until such registration, the trust remains the owner. Therefore, the conditional counterclaim based on enrichment must fail as it does not meet the requirements for an enrichment action. The exception is upheld and the conditional counterclaim is set aside.
Obiter and limits
- There is a discernible tendency in South African law towards the recognition of a general enrichment action, moving away from strict compartmentalization.
- The unique factual circumstances justified the respondents' attempt to raise the conditional counterclaim, but the law remains clear on the requirements for enrichment actions.
Court disposition
Exception upheld; conditional counterclaim set aside; no order as to costs.
- The exception is upheld.
- The conditional counterclaim of the first to fourth respondents is set aside.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
Verslagwaardig: Ja / Nee
Sirkuleer aan Regters: Ja / Nee
Sirkuleer aan Landdroste: Ja / Nee
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(Noord-Kaapse Afdeling)
Saaknommer: 1671/07
Datum Verhoor: 19/09/2008
Datum Gelewer: 26/09/2008
In die saak van:
MARAIS D
F APPLIKANT
versus
VAN DEVENTER AH (NO) & 4 ANDER RESPONDENT
Coram:
MAJIEDT R
UITSPRAAK
MAJIEDT R:
Die Eiser vorder van die eerste tot die vierde verweerders, as trustees van Die De Bad Trust (“die Trust”), die eienaar van sekere onroerende eiendom, oordrag van die bepaalde eiendom uit hoofde van ‘n koopooreenkoms.
2. Die eerste tot vierde verweerders (“die verweerders”) het ‘n verweerskrif en ‘n voorwaardelike teeneis geliasseer. Dit is teen hierdie voorwaardelike teeneis wat die eiser ‘n eksepsie opgewerp het.
In die voorwaardelike teeneis steun die verweerders op ‘n verrykingsaksie. Hulle vra vir die beregting van die teeneis slegs indien die Hof sou bevind dat daar ‘n afdwingbare ooreenkoms tussen die eiser en die verweerders tot stand gekom het. As agtergrond skets ek bondig die feite soos dit blyk uit die pleitstukke.
3.1 Die eiser het op 9 Augustus 2006 ‘n koopooreenkoms aangegaan met een van die trustees vir die koop van die Trust se onroerende eiendom (die bepaalde trustee se magtiging om namens die Trust so ‘n ooreenkoms aan te gaan is in geskil op die pleitstukke, maar is nie nou ter sake nie).
3.2 Meer as ‘n jaar na die sluiting van die koopooreenkoms, in November 2007, het die eiser prestasie deur die Trust, d.w.s. oordrag van die eiendom, ingevolge die koopooreenkoms aangevra.
3.3 Namens die Trust word in die voorwaardelike teeneis beweer dat gedurende die tydperk Junie tot Augustus 2007 (terwyl die trustees onbewus was daarvan dat ‘n koopooreenkoms vir die verkoop van die eiendom aangegaan is met die eiser) daar verbeterings aan die betrokke eiendom aangebring is ter waarde van R280 000.00, welke verbeterings tot gevolg gehad het dat die eiendom se markwaarde met minstens R300 000.00 toegeneem het.
3.4 Uit hoofde van die voorafgaande beweer verweerders dat die eiser ten koste van die verweerders verryk sal word indien die eiser sou slaag in sy eis vir oordrag van die eiendom en indien die eiser nie gelas sou word om die verweerders te vergoed vir die verbeterings nie.
4. In limine het die verweerders aanvanklik daarop gewys (heeltemal tereg ook) dat die eksepsie nie ‘n smeekbede bevat nie en alreeds op grond daarvan afgewys behoort te word. Die eiser het toe egter aansoek gedoen vir ‘n wysiging tot die eksepsie deur die
invoeging van ‘n smeekbede daarby, naamlik dat die voorwaardelike teeneis van die hand gewys moet word.
Mnr Wessels SC, wat namens die verweerders verskyn, het geen beswaar gehad teen die wysiging nie.
5. In ons Reg bestaan daar nie ‘n algemene verrykingsaksie nie;
Sien: St Helena Primary School & Another v MEC, Dept of Education, Free State Province & Another 2007 (40 SA 16 (O) te 20 I – 21 C en gewysdes daar aangehaal.
Om te slaag in ‘n verrykingsaksie moet ‘n eiser bewys dat:
(a) die verweerder verryk is;
(b) die eiser verarm is;
(c) die verryking van die verweerder ten koste van die eiser was; en
(d) die verryking ongeregverdigd (sine cause) was.
Sien McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) te para [17].
Kudu Granite Operations (Pty) Ltd v Caterna Ltd 2003 (5) SA 193 (SCA) te para [17].
6. Mnr Wessels het toegegee dat die Trust se skuldoorsaak in sy voorwaardelike teeneis nie onder enige bestaande verrykingsaksie
tuisgebring kan word nie. Hy het egter aan die hand gedoen dat daar ‘n algemene tendens bestaan in die rigting van ‘n
algemene verrykingsaksie in ons Reg en dat die Trust se teeneis in elk geval voldoen (op die blote aanvaarding van die beweringe soos dit tans staan) aan die 4 vereistes hierbo uiteengesit.
In die eersvermelde verband moet mnr Wessels gelyk gegee word; daar is ‘n merkbare neiging na die erkenning van ‘n algemene verrykingsaksie of, anders gestel, ‘n wegbeweeg van ‘n streng formalistiese kompartementalisering van ‘n
verrykingsaksie binne een van die erkende regsbasisse.
In Watson NO & Another v Shaw NO & Others 2008 (1) SA 350 (C) te para [7] tot [11] kan ‘n nuttige samevatting van die ontwikkeling in ons reg in diè verband, gevind word.
Sien ook: Laco Parts t/a ACA Clutch v Turners Shipping [2007] ZAGPHC 200; 2008 (1) SA 279 (W) te para [22].
7. Die fundamentele dilemma met die voorwaardelike teeneis is egter, soos mnr Coetzee namens die eiser/eksipiënt tereg uitgewys het, die volgende:
Buite die ou bekende Romeinse condictiones waarop ‘n verrykingsaksie tradisioneel gebaseer word (sien onder andere Joubert (ed) The Law of South Africa vol 9 (1e heruitgawe) te para 209 – 221) verleen ons reg ook ‘n verrykingsaksie aan ‘n bona fide besitter of okkupeerder wat nuttige of noodsaaklike verbeterings aan ‘n ander se eiendom aanbring sonder dat daar ‘n ooreenkoms bestaan in diè verband.
Sien: McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC supra te para [12].
In die onderhawige geval is die Trust nòg ‘n bona fide besitter nòg ‘n bona fide okkupeerder van sy eie eiendom. Die Trust is inteendeel eienaar en mnr Coetzee is korrek in sy submissie dat ‘n eienaar tog nie regtens verarm kan word deur verbeterings aan sy eie eiendom aan te bring nie. In ons Reg vind eiendomsoorgang by onroerende goed plaas deur registrasie in die Akteskantoor. Sien: Terblanche NO en andere 2002 (6) SA 132 (NK) te para [22]; Silberberg & Schoemans’ Law of Property, 5 e uitg. te 205 .
Hierdie beginsel is statutêr beliggaam in art 16 van die Registrasie van Aktes Wet, 47 van 1937, wat bepaal dat eienaarskap van onroerende eiendom van een persoon na ‘n ander slegs mag geskied by wyse van ‘n transportakte deur die registrateur onderteken of ge-attesteer.
Gevolglik beteken dit dat die verweerders ten behoewe van die Trust eienaars van die eiendom bly totdat registrasie in die naam van ‘n ander persoon sou plaasvind in die Akteskantoor.
8. Ek het tot ‘n mate begrip vir die verweerders/Trust se netelige situasie, maar is die regsposisie tog duidelik, soos uiteengesit in die voorafgaande paragrawe.
Gevolglik moet die eksepsie slaag.
In die uitoefening van my diskresie ten aansien van koste meen ek dat daar voldoende gronde bestaan het vir die verweerders om uit so ‘n unieke feitestel die voorwaardelike teeneis die lig te laat sien. Ek gaan gevolglik geen kostebevel maak nie.
Die eksepsie word gehandhaaf en die eerste tot vierde verweerders se voorwaardelike teeneis word tersyde gestel.
____
SA MAJIEDT
REGTER
NAMENS EISER : Adv W Coetzee
IN OPDRAG VAN : Engelsman Magabane Ingelyf
NAMENS VERWEERDER(S) : Adv M H Wessels (SC)
IN OPDRAG VAN : Christo Faber Prokureurs
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.