Velcich and Others v Land En Landboubank van Suid-Afrika and Others (728/93) [1995] ZASCA 86; 1996 (1) SA 17 (SCA); (31 August 1995)

Velcich and Others v Land En Landboubank van Suid-Afrika and Others (728/93) [1995] ZASCA 86; 1996 (1) SA 17 (SCA); (31 August 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the lease agreement did not survive the sale in execution of the farm because the property was auctioned free of any lease and the mortgage bonds were registered prior to the lease. The sub-lease entered into after sequestration was not binding on the Land Bank or the subsequent purchaser, as the lessor lacked authority to consent without the trustee's written approval, and the sub-lease was unregistered and unknown to the purchaser. The argument for a lien based on unjust enrichment was rejected because the application was founded on contract, not enrichment, and no facts supporting unjust enrichment were pleaded. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 86
Parties
Appellant: Ralph Velcich; Appellant: Ezra Martins; Appellant: Jan de Bruyn Breedt; Respondent: Land en Landboubank van Suid-Afrika; Respondent: James van Rensburg NO; Respondent: Chalmar Beef (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 1995
Case Number
728/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Joubert, Nestadt, Steyn, Van Den Heever, Schutz
Legal Topics
Lease Survival on Execution Sale, Sublease Validity Post Sequestration, Insolvent Estate Contracts
Land and Property Civil Procedure Lease Survival on Execution Sale Sublease Validity Post Sequestration Insolvent Estate 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Velcich

Appellant

Ezra Martins

Appellant

Jan de Bruyn Breedt

Appellant

Land en Landboubank van Suid-Afrika

Respondent

James van Rensburg NO

Respondent

Chalmar Beef (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement survived the sale in execution of the farm.
  2. 2 Whether the sub-lease entered into after sequestration is valid and enforceable against the purchaser and mortgagee.
  3. 3 Whether the third appellant has a lien over the crops based on unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the lease agreement did not survive the sale in execution of the farm because the property was auctioned free of any lease and the mortgage bonds were registered prior to the lease. The sub-lease entered into after sequestration was not binding on the Land Bank or the subsequent purchaser, as the lessor lacked authority to consent without the trustee's written approval, and the sub-lease was unregistered and unknown to the purchaser. The argument for a lien based on unjust enrichment was rejected because the application was founded on contract, not enrichment, and no facts supporting unjust enrichment were pleaded. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.