Pro Nobis Landgoed (Edms) Bpk. v Amavuba (Pty) Ltd. (231/1984) [1985] ZASCA 119 (19 November 1985)

Pro Nobis Landgoed (Edms) Bpk. v Amavuba (Pty) Ltd. (231/1984) [1985] ZASCA 119 (19 November 1985)

The appellant failed to establish that the respondent was a party to the alleged agreement concluded by James and Thunstrom. The affidavits did not support the contention that James represented the respondent, especially as the respondent was in provisional liquidation at the time. Even accepting the appellant's version, the agreement was void for vagueness because it did not specify the duration of the lease or the periodicity of rental payments. The concession by respondent's counsel in the court a quo did not amount to an admission that the respondent was a party to the agreement. Accordingly, the appellant's defence to the ejectment claim failed.

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 119
Parties
Appellant: Pro Nobis Landgoed (Edms) Beperk; Respondent: Amavuba (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 1985
Case Number
231/1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Motion Proceedings for Ejectment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Van Heerden, Grosskopf, Cillié
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Oral Lease Agreement, Vagueness in Contract, Right of Retention
Land and Property Civil Procedure Ejectment Oral Lease Agreement Vagueness in Contract Right of Retention

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pro Nobis Landgoed (Edms) Beperk

Appellant

Amavuba (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Motion Proceedings for Ejectment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a valid lease or contractual right to occupy the game farm after 31 December 1982.
  2. 2 Whether a stipulation to pay a reasonable rental renders a lease agreement void for vagueness.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was a party to the alleged agreement concluded by James and Thunstrom.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish that the respondent was a party to the alleged agreement concluded by James and Thunstrom. The affidavits did not support the contention that James represented the respondent, especially as the respondent was in provisional liquidation at the time. Even accepting the appellant's version, the agreement was void for vagueness because it did not specify the duration of the lease or the periodicity of rental payments. The concession by respondent's counsel in the court a quo did not amount to an admission that the respondent was a party to the agreement. Accordingly, the appellant's defence to the ejectment claim failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.