Scheepers v Strydom (370/90) [1994] ZASCA 3; [1994] 2 All SA 240 (A) (1 March 1994)

Scheepers v Strydom (370/90) [1994] ZASCA 3; [1994] 2 All SA 240 (A) (1 March 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written contract sufficiently identified the purchaser as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The contract described the purchaser as the appellant and respondent in their capacities as directors of a company to be formed, or, failing that, in their personal capacities. The alternative wording was intended only to provide for the contingency that the company might not be formed or might not accept the contract. The court found that the trial court's interpretation was artificial and that the contract met the statutory requirements. Consequently, the absolution from the instance and the judgment on the counterclaim were set aside.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 3
Parties
Appellant: Hendrik Wilhelmus Scheepers; Respondent: Hendrik Christoffel Strydom
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 1994
Case Number
370/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution and Counterclaim Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; absolution and counterclaim judgment set aside.
Judges
Van Coller, Hoexter, Vivier, Kumleben
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Identification of Parties, Absolution From the Instance, Counterclaim, Formal Requirements for Contracts
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sale of Land Identification of Parties Absolution From the Instance Counterclaim Formal Requirements for Contracts

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Wilhelmus Scheepers

Appellant

Hendrik Christoffel Strydom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution and Counterclaim Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written contract for the sale of land sufficiently identified the purchaser as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in granting absolution from the instance and upholding the respondent's counterclaim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written contract sufficiently identified the purchaser as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The contract described the purchaser as the appellant and respondent in their capacities as directors of a company to be formed, or, failing that, in their personal capacities. The alternative wording was intended only to provide for the contingency that the company might not be formed or might not accept the contract. The court found that the trial court's interpretation was artificial and that the contract met the statutory requirements. Consequently, the absolution from the instance and the judgment on the counterclaim were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; absolution and counterclaim judgment set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, except that the costs occasioned by the postponement on 13 May 1993 are to be paid by the appellant.
  • The orders of the trial court dated 11 July 1990 (absolution from the instance) and 1 August 1990 (counterclaim judgment) are set aside with costs.