Strohmenger v Victor (1133/20) [2022] ZASCA 45 (8 April 2022)

Strohmenger v Victor (1133/20) [2022] ZASCA 45 (8 April 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the first respondent failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreement or any entitlement to restitution. The respondent closed his case without adducing evidence on crucial allegations denied by the applicant, including the existence of a written deed of alienation and the basis for restitution. The pleadings alone did not establish a cause of action, and the transfer of the property to the applicant was validly effected pursuant to a deed of alienation between the applicant and the seller, not involving the respondent. The full court erred in ordering the transfer of the property, as there was no evidence supporting the respondent's...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 45
Parties
Applicant: Susara Magrietha Strohmenger; Respondent: Schalk Willem Victor; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2022
Case Number
1133/20
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal, Post Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; order of the full court set aside and replaced with dismissal of the respondent's claim with costs.
Judges
Saldulker, Makgoka, Hughes, Matojane, Molefe
Legal Topics
Restitution, Prescription, Alienation of Land Act, Burden of Proof, Oral Agreement, Donation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Restitution Prescription Alienation of Land Act Burden of Proof Oral Agreement Donation

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

Parties

Susara Magrietha Strohmenger

Applicant

Schalk Willem Victor

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal, Post Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances existed for the Supreme Court of Appeal to grant special leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent proved his claim for restitution and was entitled to relief.
  3. 3 Whether the oral agreement alleged by the first respondent was unlawful and void under the Alienation of Land Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the first respondent failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreement or any entitlement to restitution. The respondent closed his case without adducing evidence on crucial allegations denied by the applicant, including the existence of a written deed of alienation and the basis for restitution. The pleadings alone did not establish a cause of action, and the transfer of the property to the applicant was validly effected pursuant to a deed of alienation between the applicant and the seller, not involving the respondent. The full court erred in ordering the transfer of the property, as there was no evidence supporting the respondent's...

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; order of the full court set aside and replaced with dismissal of the respondent's claim with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted special leave to appeal in terms of section 17(2)(d) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
  • The appeal is upheld with costs.