Van Staden v Fourie (36/89) [1989] ZASCA 36; [1989] 2 All SA 329 (A) (30 March 1989)

Van Staden v Fourie (36/89) [1989] ZASCA 36; [1989] 2 All SA 329 (A) (30 March 1989)

The court held that the contract between the parties was subject to the Share Blocks Control Act, and that the statutory formalities in section 17 were not complied with. Consequently, the remedies in section 18 applied, entitling the respondent to reclaim payments made under the contract. The right to reclaim arose immediately upon each payment, and prescription ran from those dates, resulting in partial prescription of the respondent's claim. The court further found that the appellant was entitled to reasonable compensation for the respondent's use of the property, which was not limited to the statutory rental value under the Rent Control Act, but rather based on market value and the...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 36
Parties
Appellant: Marthinus Ferdinand Van Staden; Respondent: Willem Hendrik Fourie
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 1989
Case Number
36/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part. The respondent's claim is reduced due to prescription. The appellant's claim for reasonable compensation is increased. No damages awarded for alleged deterioration. Each party to bear own costs in the court a quo. Appellant awarded costs of appeal.
Judges
CORBETT HR, E M GROSSKOPF, VIVIER, KUMLEBEN, EKSTEEN
Legal Topics
Share Block Schemes, Statutory Formalities, Condictio Indebiti, Prescription, Reasonable Use Compensation
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Share Block Schemes Statutory Formalities Condictio Indebiti Prescription Reasonable Use Compensation

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marthinus Ferdinand Van Staden

Appellant

Willem Hendrik Fourie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the parties was subject to the formal requirements of section 17 of the Share Blocks Control Act, 59 of 1980.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's claim for repayment of amounts paid under the contract had prescribed under the Prescription Act, 68 of 1969.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for the respondent's use of the property beyond the statutory rental value.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the contract between the parties was subject to the Share Blocks Control Act, and that the statutory formalities in section 17 were not complied with. Consequently, the remedies in section 18 applied, entitling the respondent to reclaim payments made under the contract. The right to reclaim arose immediately upon each payment, and prescription ran from those dates, resulting in partial prescription of the respondent's claim. The court further found that the appellant was entitled to reasonable compensation for the respondent's use of the property, which was not limited to the statutory rental value under the Rent Control Act, but rather based on market value and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part. The respondent's claim is reduced due to prescription. The appellant's claim for reasonable compensation is increased. No damages awarded for alleged deterioration. Each party to bear own costs in the court a quo. Appellant awarded costs of appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced as follows: