Wahloo Sand CC and Others v Trustees of the Hambly Parker Trust and Others (85/2000) [2001] ZASCA 137; 2002 (2) SA 776 (SCA) (29 November 2001)

Wahloo Sand CC and Others v Trustees of the Hambly Parker Trust and Others (85/2000) [2001] ZASCA 137; 2002 (2) SA 776 (SCA) (29 November 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of notice, which protects a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of an unregistered servitude, applies only after transfer of ownership. Prior to transfer, both the purchaser and the holder of the servitude agreement have competing personal rights. The maxim qui prior est tempore potior est iure governs the preference between such rights, giving priority to the earlier right unless special circumstances justify otherwise. In this case, the appellants' right to registration of the servitude arose before the respondent's right to clean transfer. The respondent failed to demonstrate any special circumstances or equities that would...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 137
Parties
Appellant: Wahloo Sand CC; Appellant: Lizette Weyer-Henderson Familie Trust; Appellant: Tom Von Bratt Familie Trust; Respondent: Trustees of the Hambly Parker Trust; Respondent: Kromgoed (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2001
Case Number
85/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Local Division, Against Discharge of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.
Judges
Vivier, Howie, Olivier, Cloete, Brand
Legal Topics
Registration of Servitude, Specific Performance, Priority of Personal Rights, Doctrine of Notice, Qui Prior Est Tempore, Interdict
Land and Property Civil Procedure Registration of Servitude Specific Performance Priority of Personal Rights Doctrine of Notice Qui Prior Est Tempore Interdict

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wahloo Sand CC

Appellant

Lizette Weyer-Henderson Familie Trust

Appellant

Tom Von Bratt Familie Trust

Appellant

Trustees of the Hambly Parker Trust

Respondent

Kromgoed (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Local Division, Against Discharge of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a purchaser of immovable property who lacks knowledge of an unregistered servitude agreement can resist registration of the servitude prior to transfer.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of notice applies to a purchaser who has not yet acquired ownership by registration.
  3. 3 Whether the maxim qui prior est tempore potior est iure governs the preference between competing personal rights to immovable property.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of notice, which protects a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of an unregistered servitude, applies only after transfer of ownership. Prior to transfer, both the purchaser and the holder of the servitude agreement have competing personal rights. The maxim qui prior est tempore potior est iure governs the preference between such rights, giving priority to the earlier right unless special circumstances justify otherwise. In this case, the appellants' right to registration of the servitude arose before the respondent's right to clean transfer. The respondent failed to demonstrate any special circumstances or equities that would...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The rule nisi dated 26 August 1999 is made final.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' costs, except as provided in paragraph (c).