Pheiffer v Van Wyk and Others (267/13) [2014] ZASCA 87; 2015 (5) SA 464 (SCA) (30 May 2014)

Pheiffer v Van Wyk and Others (267/13) [2014] ZASCA 87; 2015 (5) SA 464 (SCA) (30 May 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court has discretion to order the substitution of security for an enrichment lien, and such security may be provided by a party other than the owner. The guarantee furnished by ABSA Bank on behalf of the third respondent is sufficient security for the appellant's enrichment claim in respect of improvements to the property. Once adequate security is provided, the appellant has no basis to continue occupying the property and must vacate. The court found that the appellant had enjoyed possession and benefits of the property for an extended period and had not yet lodged his claim for improvements. The guarantee covers any judgment debt up to R2...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 87
Parties
Appellant: Willem Pheiffer; Respondent: Cornelius Johannes van Wyk; Respondent: Aagje van Wyk; Respondent: Marde (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marius Eksteen
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2014
Case Number
267/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced.
Judges
Mthiyane, Lewis, Mhlantla, Saldulker, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Enrichment Lien, Right of Retention, Security in Lieu of Lien, Eviction, Unjustified Enrichment
Land and Property Civil Procedure Enrichment Lien Right of Retention Security in Lieu of Lien Eviction Unjustified Enrichment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Pheiffer

Appellant

Cornelius Johannes van Wyk

Respondent

Aagje van Wyk

Respondent

Marde (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Marius Eksteen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the security tendered by the third respondent is sufficient for the appellant's enrichment claim in respect of improvements to the property.
  2. 2 Whether the court has discretion to order security in lieu of an enrichment lien, even if the security is provided by a non-owner.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is obliged to vacate the property upon provision of adequate security for his enrichment claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court has discretion to order the substitution of security for an enrichment lien, and such security may be provided by a party other than the owner. The guarantee furnished by ABSA Bank on behalf of the third respondent is sufficient security for the appellant's enrichment claim in respect of improvements to the property. Once adequate security is provided, the appellant has no basis to continue occupying the property and must vacate. The court found that the appellant had enjoyed possession and benefits of the property for an extended period and had not yet lodged his claim for improvements. The guarantee covers any judgment debt up to R2...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appellant is ordered to vacate Portion 2, Farm Bleshoenderpan 211, Registration Division MR, Dardanelin, Alldays, Limpopo Province with immediate effect.
  • The guarantee provided by ABSA Bank Ltd on 7 February 2013 on behalf of Marde (Edms) Bpk is sufficient security for the appellant’s enrichment claim in respect of improvements to the property.