Pretorius v Loudon (366/83) [1985] ZASCA 46; [1985] 2 All SA 378 (A) (29 May 1985)

Pretorius v Loudon (366/83) [1985] ZASCA 46; [1985] 2 All SA 378 (A) (29 May 1985)

The court held that the respondent remained the owner of the BMW motor vehicle, as the dealer never acquired ownership and acted fraudulently. The appellant did not purchase the vehicle directly from the dealer, but from Independent Leasing, which itself did not acquire ownership from the true owner. The respondent's conduct did not amount to authorising the dealer to sell the vehicle to anyone other than the intended buyer, nor did it create apparent authority or estoppel in favour of the appellant or Independent Leasing. The Roman-Dutch rule regarding agents for sale did not apply, as neither the appellant nor Independent Leasing could be considered bona fide purchasers from an...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 46
Parties
Appellant: Barend Johannes Pretorius; Respondent: Joy Dawn Loudon
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1985
Case Number
366/83
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Rabie, Kotzé, Joubert, Botha, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Rei Vindicatio, Estoppel, Agency for Sale, Ownership Transfer, Bona Fide Purchaser
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rei Vindicatio Estoppel Agency for Sale Ownership Transfer Bona Fide Purchaser

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barend Johannes Pretorius

Appellant

Joy Dawn Loudon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to reclaim possession of the BMW motor vehicle from the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acquired ownership of the vehicle through Independent Leasing or by virtue of agency or estoppel.
  3. 3 Whether the historical Roman-Dutch rule regarding agents for sale limits the respondent's rei vindicatio.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent remained the owner of the BMW motor vehicle, as the dealer never acquired ownership and acted fraudulently. The appellant did not purchase the vehicle directly from the dealer, but from Independent Leasing, which itself did not acquire ownership from the true owner. The respondent's conduct did not amount to authorising the dealer to sell the vehicle to anyone other than the intended buyer, nor did it create apparent authority or estoppel in favour of the appellant or Independent Leasing. The Roman-Dutch rule regarding agents for sale did not apply, as neither the appellant nor Independent Leasing could be considered bona fide purchasers from an...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The respondent is entitled to reclaim possession of the BMW motor vehicle from the appellant.