Strydom and Another v Liebenberg (293/06) [2007] ZASCA 117; [2007] SCA 117 (RSA) (25 September 2007)

Strydom and Another v Liebenberg (293/06) [2007] ZASCA 117; [2007] SCA 117 (RSA) (25 September 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff retained ownership of the game on the properties, as the sale agreements did not include the game and the plaintiff continued to exercise control over the animals. Delivery of the game to the new owners occurred only upon erection of the game fence, which was the practical method of transferring ownership. The defendants were aware they had not purchased the game and were not bona fide possessors. The plaintiff was entitled to claim the return of all game on the defendants' properties, but not the value of the game, as it was not possible to apportion the value between the defendants due to lack of evidence on the numbers or proportion...

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 117
Parties
Appellant: G A Strydom; Appellant: W D La Grange; Respondent: B J Liebenberg
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2007
Case Number
293/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Pretoria High Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Scott, Cachalia, Kgomo
Legal Topics
Vindicatory Action, Ownership of Game, Delivery of Property, Apportionment of Value
Land and Property Civil Procedure Vindicatory Action Ownership of Game Delivery of Property Apportionment of Value

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G A Strydom

Appellant

W D La Grange

Appellant

B J Liebenberg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Pretoria High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff retained ownership of the game after the sale of the properties.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants acquired ownership of the game by purchasing the properties.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the value of the game from the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff retained ownership of the game on the properties, as the sale agreements did not include the game and the plaintiff continued to exercise control over the animals. Delivery of the game to the new owners occurred only upon erection of the game fence, which was the practical method of transferring ownership. The defendants were aware they had not purchased the game and were not bona fide possessors. The plaintiff was entitled to claim the return of all game on the defendants' properties, but not the value of the game, as it was not possible to apportion the value between the defendants due to lack of evidence on the numbers or proportion...

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed with costs.