South Africa Case Law

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (2015/2022)

Bosaletse N.O. and Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy (2015/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 3 (6 January 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2015/2022

Judge

Van Rhyn

The court found that the plaintiffs never acquired a prospecting right, as their application was declined due to failure to obtain the landowner's consent. The claim for damages is a personal right, not a real right, and thus constitutes a 'debt' under the Prescription Act. The plaintiffs' cause of action arose at the latest by September 2013, when they knew or ought to have known of the refusal. As summons was only issued in May 2022, the claim for damages prescribed by September 2016. The plaintiffs did not act diligently and failed to exhaust internal remedies. The special plea of prescrip…

Source excerpt

• Prospecting Rights
• Extinctive Prescription
• Mandamus
• Mineral And Petroleum Resources Development Act
• Access To Court
• Real Vs Personal Rights

Shackleton Credit Management (Pty) Ltd v J.J.N and Others (1975/2013)

Shackleton Credit Management (Pty) Ltd v J.J.N and Others (1975/2013) [2024] ZAECQBHC 40 (14 May 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1975/2013

Judge

Bloem

The court dismissed an application to declare immovable property executable, finding the second respondent had only a personal right to transfer, not ownership, because registration had not occurred.

• Deeds Registries Act
• Real Vs Personal Rights
• Execution Of Immovable Property
• Divorce Settlement
• Transfer Of Ownership
• Deeds-registries-act

Thabit and Others vs Muladzi and Others (30518/2020; 34521/2020)

Thabit and Others vs Muladzi and Others (30518/2020; 34521/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 251 (17 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

30518/2020; 34521/2020

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court dismissed a declaratory claim over a property sale and upheld an eviction, finding the earlier sale was unregistered and gave only a personal right.

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Registration Of Transfer
• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Real Vs Personal Rights
• Mortgage Bond Registration
• Alienation-of-land-act

Majola and Another v Country Cloud Trading 221 CC and Others (AR161/2018)

Majola and Another v Country Cloud Trading 221 CC and Others (AR161/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 21; 2019 (5) SA 195 (KZP) (15 April 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR161/2018

Judges

Mbatha, Madondo, Hadebe

The court found that the conditions registered in the title deed created only personal rights enforceable against the original purchaser, not real rights binding successors-in-title. The respondents failed to provide evidence of a common intention or written consent required for rectification under s 4(1)(b) of the Deeds Registries Act. The attempt to substitute parties and amend the extent of the property amounted to the creation of new rights, not the correction of errors. Furthermore, the reversionary right clause, which allowed transfer of property without compensation, was held to be unc…

Source excerpt

• Rectification Of Title Deeds
• Real Vs Personal Rights
• Deprivation Of Property
• Deeds Registries Act
• Constitutional Property Rights
• Specific Performance

eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Limited (CCT05/18)

eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Limited (CCT05/18) [2018] ZACC 43; 2019 (2) BCLR 236 (CC) ; 2019 (4) SA 394 (CC) (31 October 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT05/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the Municipality's claim for re-transfer of the property is a 'debt' as contemplated by the Prescription Act. The obligation to deliver immovable property, even if effected by registration of transfer, constitutes a debt and prescribes within three years. The reversionary right in the deed of transfer is a personal right, not a limited real right, as it does not bind successors in title and does not result in a subtraction from the dominium of the land. Registration of the reversionary clause does not convert the personal right into a real right. The alterna…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Real Vs Personal Rights
• Reversionary Clauses
• Deeds Registries Act
• Access To Court
• Mortgage Bond Prescription

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Puling and Another, Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Ramokgopa (802/2016, 803/2016)

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Puling and Another, Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Ramokgopa (802/2016, 803/2016) [2017] ZASCA 141; 2017 (6) SA 373 (SCA) (2 October 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

802/2016, 803/2016

Judges

Leach, Tshiqi, Seriti, Tsoka, Ploos van Amstel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the condition registered against the title deed comprised two clauses: the first, obliging the transferee and successors to build within a prescribed period, created a real right and restriction on ownership. The second, entitling the developer to claim re-transfer against repayment of the purchase price, was a personal right akin to an option to purchase, enforceable only by the developer and not binding on third parties. The two clauses were not inseparably bound as a composite restriction on ownership. Consequently, the right to claim re-transfer const…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Real Vs Personal Rights
• Title Deed Conditions
• Option To Purchase
• Retransfer Of Property

eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Ltd (1068/2016)

eThekwini Municipality v Mounthaven (Pty) Ltd (1068/2016) [2017] ZASCA 129; 2018 (1) SA 384 (SCA) (29 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1068/2016

Judges

Tshiqi, Seriti, Saldulker, Gorven, Ploos van Amstel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Municipality's right to claim re-transfer of the property is a personal right, not a limited real right. The right is enforceable only against Mounthaven or its successors in title, not against the world at large. The claim for re-transfer constitutes a debt under Chapter III of the Prescription Act, as it is an obligation to do something (effect transfer of property) in favour of the Municipality. The claim prescribed after three years, and the alternative arguments advanced by the Municipality regarding mortgage bond security and continuing wrong we…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Reversionary Clause
• Real Vs Personal Rights
• Transfer Of Property

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Ramakgoba and Others ; In re : Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Pulling Pulling (72637/2013 ; 7819/2014 ; 58/2014)

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Ramakgoba and Others ; In re : Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Pulling Pulling (72637/2013 ; 7819/2014 ; 58/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 600 (14 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

72637/2013 ; 7819/2014 ; 58/2014

Judge

Makhubele AJ

The court found that the applicant's claim for retransfer of property, based on the title condition, constitutes a debt as contemplated in the Prescription Act and is subject to a three-year prescription period under section 11(d). The registration of the title condition in the deed of transfer does not elevate the right to a real right, nor does it constitute a personal servitude subject to a 30-year prescription period. The court distinguished the present facts from those in Willow Waters and Mosikare, noting that the condition in question is limited to an 18-month period and does not bind…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Real Vs Personal Rights
• Title Conditions
• Deeds Registries Act
• Special Plea Of Prescription
• Leave To Appeal

Absa Bank Limited v Keet (817/2013)

Absa Bank Limited v Keet (817/2013) [2015] ZASCA 81; 2015 (4) SA 474 (SCA); [2015] 4 All SA 1 (SCA) (28 May 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

817/2013

Judges

Maya, Bosielo, Wallis, Zondi, Meyer

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a claim under the actio rei vindicatio is not a debt as contemplated by Chapter III of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The distinction between real rights and personal rights is central: real rights, such as ownership, are not subject to the three-year extinctive prescription period applicable to debts. The court found that previous decisions treating vindicatory claims as debts were incorrect, as this interpretation undermines the scheme of the Prescription Act and leads to absurd results. The appeal was upheld, and the special plea of prescription was…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Rei Vindicatio
• Extinctive Prescription
• Real Vs Personal Rights

Tsibulane and Another v Ngxolela and Others (20/2014)

Tsibulane and Another v Ngxolela and Others (20/2014) [2015] ZAECPEHC 60 (14 April 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

20/2014

Judge

Majiki

The court reviewed and set aside an invalid estate appointment, voided a later property sale based on it, upheld the earlier sale, and ordered cancellation of transfer.

• Review Of Administrative Action
• Invalid Appointment
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Transfer Of Property
• Prescription
• Real Vs Personal Rights