Sapphire Dawn Trading 42 BK v De Klerk and Others (693/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 11 (12 February 2009)

Sapphire Dawn Trading 42 BK v De Klerk and Others (693/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 11 (12 February 2009)

The court found that the third respondent's own conduct, including repeated offers to purchase the property and acknowledgment of the deceased's ownership in official applications, was inconsistent with the animus domini required for acquisitive prescription. The evidence indicated that the third respondent occupied and farmed the property by virtue of permission and agreement with the deceased, not as owner. The court held that the factual dispute raised by the third respondent was not bona fide and did not preclude the granting of relief. The applicant was entitled to registration of transfer, subject to compliance with the Administration of Estates Act, and the third respondent was...

Citation
[2009] ZAFSHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Sapphire Dawn Trading 42 BK; Respondent: A.M. De Klerk; Respondent: A.M. De Klerk N.O.; Respondent: Adriaan De Klerk
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Case Number
693/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The applicant is entitled to registration of transfer of the property, subject to compliance with the Administration of Estates Act. Costs awarded against the third respondent.
Judges
A.F. Jordaan, R
Legal Topics
Transfer of Property, Acquisition by Prescription, Estate Administration, Boedelwet Compliance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Transfer of Property Acquisition by Prescription Estate Administration Boedelwet Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sapphire Dawn Trading 42 BK

Applicant

A.M. De Klerk

Respondent

A.M. De Klerk N.O.

Respondent

Adriaan De Klerk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent acquired ownership of the property by acquisitive prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to registration of transfer of the property, subject to compliance with the Administration of Estates Act.
  3. 3 Whether the opposition by the third respondent constitutes a bona fide factual dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third respondent's own conduct, including repeated offers to purchase the property and acknowledgment of the deceased's ownership in official applications, was inconsistent with the animus domini required for acquisitive prescription. The evidence indicated that the third respondent occupied and farmed the property by virtue of permission and agreement with the deceased, not as owner. The court held that the factual dispute raised by the third respondent was not bona fide and did not preclude the granting of relief. The applicant was entitled to registration of transfer, subject to compliance with the Administration of Estates Act, and the third respondent was...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The applicant is entitled to registration of transfer of the property, subject to compliance with the Administration of Estates Act. Costs awarded against the third respondent.

Orders

  • It is declared that the applicant is entitled to registration of transfer of the remaining portion of the farm Ongegun No. 709, district Parys, Free State.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to immediately sign all documents and do all things necessary to effect transfer of the property into the name of the first respondent and then into the name of the applicant.