Pretorious v Coetzee and Others (1356/2004) [2005] ZANWHC 38 (27 May 2005)

Pretorious v Coetzee and Others (1356/2004) [2005] ZANWHC 38 (27 May 2005)

The court found that the respondents complied with section 5 of the PIE Act by giving the applicant six months' notice to vacate the farm and that the requirements for an urgent mandatory interdict were satisfied. The applicant's status as an unrehabilitated insolvent meant the respondents had no effective remedy other than eviction. Clause 4 of the contract did not create a lease agreement independent of the contract of sale, which never materialised. The applicant failed to demonstrate unequivocal conduct or consensus ad idem necessary for a tacit contract. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would uphold the applicant's contentions, and leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2005] ZANWHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Petrus Pretorius (JNR); Respondent: Jacoba Stefina Coetzee; Respondent: Magdalena Gertruida Brits; Respondent: Gert Hendrik Jacobus Coetzee N.O
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Case Number
1356/2004
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
M.T.R. Mogoeng
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Lease Termination on Death, Urgent Mandatory Interdict, Tacit Contract, Compliance With Statutory Requirements
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Lease Termination on Death Urgent Mandatory Interdict Tacit Contract Compliance With Statutory Requirements

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

Jacobus Petrus Pretorius (JNR)

Applicant

Jacoba Stefina Coetzee

Respondent

Magdalena Gertruida Brits

Respondent

Gert Hendrik Jacobus Coetzee N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents complied with section 5 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
  2. 2 Whether clause 4 of the contract created a lease agreement between the applicant and respondents after the death of Roos.
  3. 3 Whether there was a tacit lease agreement between the parties valid until 2007.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents complied with section 5 of the PIE Act by giving the applicant six months' notice to vacate the farm and that the requirements for an urgent mandatory interdict were satisfied. The applicant's status as an unrehabilitated insolvent meant the respondents had no effective remedy other than eviction. Clause 4 of the contract did not create a lease agreement independent of the contract of sale, which never materialised. The applicant failed to demonstrate unequivocal conduct or consensus ad idem necessary for a tacit contract. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would uphold the applicant's contentions, and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.