Rooyendal (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Another (LCC 82/2007) [2013] ZALCC 7; [2013] 3 All SA 588 (LCC) (14 May 2013)
The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish the existence of oral agreements for the payment of input and development costs. The evidence, both oral and documentary, did not conclusively demonstrate a meeting of minds or agreement on essential terms such as the merx and pertium. The minutes of meetings and witness testimony indicated that discussions occurred but did not amount to enforceable agreements. Statutory requirements under the Alienation of Land Act and Restitution of Land Rights Act mandate that such agreements be in writing and signed by the authorised official. The credibility of the plaintiffs' witnesses, particularly Hepburn, was undermined...
- Citation
- [2013] ZALCC 7
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rooyendal (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Mark William Boshoff; Plaintiff: Senta Boshoff; Plaintiff: Edsel Hohls; Plaintiff: I.R. Voights (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Walter Herbert Redinger; Plaintiff: Heins Friedel Redinger; Plaintiff: Desmond Robert Peter Fourie N.O.; Plaintiff: Karen Ann Hepburn N.O.; Plaintiff: Walter Herbert Redinger N.O.; Plaintiff: Senta Boshoff N.O.; Plaintiff: Verona Ida Regine Redinger N.O.; Plaintiff: Mark William Boshoff N.O.; Plaintiff: Edsel Hohls N.O.; Plaintiff: Anita Leni Hohls N.O.; Plaintiff: Dietmar Meyer N.O.; Plaintiff: Herbert Helmut Schulz N.O.; Plaintiff: Ivan Richard Voigts N.O.; Plaintiff: Ivan Richard Viogts N.O.; Plaintiff: Willm Wouter Fourie N.O.; Plaintiff: Ivan Stevens Colenbrander N.O.; Plaintiff: Ralph Ivan Viogts N.O.; Plaintiff: Andre Mark Viogts N.O.; Plaintiff: Heidi Swanepoel N.O.; Defendant: Minister of Land Affairs; Defendant: Tabatha Agatha Shange
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 14 May 2013
- Case Number
- LCC 82/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Trial / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Sardiwalla AJ
- Legal Topics
- Oral Contracts, Specific Performance, Alienation of Land Act, Burden of Proof, Restitution of Land Rights Act, Contract Essentialia
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rooyendal (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff
Mark William Boshoff
Plaintiff
Senta Boshoff
Plaintiff
Edsel Hohls
Plaintiff
I.R. Voights (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff
Walter Herbert Redinger
Plaintiff
Heins Friedel Redinger
Plaintiff
Desmond Robert Peter Fourie N.O.
Plaintiff
Karen Ann Hepburn N.O.
Plaintiff
Walter Herbert Redinger N.O.
Plaintiff
Senta Boshoff N.O.
Plaintiff
Verona Ida Regine Redinger N.O.
Plaintiff
Mark William Boshoff N.O.
Plaintiff
Edsel Hohls N.O.
Plaintiff
Anita Leni Hohls N.O.
Plaintiff
Dietmar Meyer N.O.
Plaintiff
Herbert Helmut Schulz N.O.
Plaintiff
Ivan Richard Voigts N.O.
Plaintiff
Ivan Richard Viogts N.O.
Plaintiff
Willm Wouter Fourie N.O.
Plaintiff
Ivan Stevens Colenbrander N.O.
Plaintiff
Ralph Ivan Viogts N.O.
Plaintiff
Andre Mark Viogts N.O.
Plaintiff
Heidi Swanepoel N.O.
Plaintiff
Minister of Land Affairs
Defendant
Tabatha Agatha Shange
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether oral agreements for payment of input and development costs were concluded between the first to seventh plaintiffs and the defendants.
- 2 Whether such oral agreements, if concluded, were valid and enforceable in light of the written deeds of sale and statutory requirements.
- 3 Whether the agreements had to comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish the existence of oral agreements for the payment of input and development costs. The evidence, both oral and documentary, did not conclusively demonstrate a meeting of minds or agreement on essential terms such as the merx and pertium. The minutes of meetings and witness testimony indicated that discussions occurred but did not amount to enforceable agreements. Statutory requirements under the Alienation of Land Act and Restitution of Land Rights Act mandate that such agreements be in writing and signed by the authorised official. The credibility of the plaintiffs' witnesses, particularly Hepburn, was undermined...
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The oral agreements averred by the first to seventh plaintiffs have not been concluded.
- The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment