About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 786
|
|
Humphries and Another v Import Export 2020 (Pty)Ltd (92006/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 786 (26 August 2016)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 92006/2015
Date:
26/8/2016
REPORTABLE
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter between:
LOURENS JOHANNES
HUMPHRIES
..................................................................
...
1
st
Applicant
ZACHARIA GERTRUIDA
MAGDALENA HUMPHRIES
....................................
2
nd
Applicant
and
IMPORT EXPORT
2020 (PTY)
LTD
.............................................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT
HF JACOBS,
AJ:
[
1]
On 18 November 2013 the applicants bought from the respondent the
immovable property known as "Gedeelte [1…] van
die plaas
Verloren
787/KR", 2 500 square metres in extent ("the property")
for a purchase price of
R750 000.00
payable
before
or on 20
November
2013.
In addition
to the
purchase price the applicants had to pay to the respondent's
attorneys, E
nslin
& Fourie of Bela-Bela, the transfer costs on demand.
[1]
The
applicants
made
payment to the respondent of the purchase consideration and the
transfer
costs on 21 November 2013 and 19 March 2014 respectively.
The
respondent
failed to effect transfer of the property into the applicants'
names
and
on 15 May 2015 the applicants addressed a letter of demand to
the
respondent
affording
the
latter seven
days to
provide
proof of registration of
transfer and bond cancellation documents in respect of the property.
On
12
October 2015 the applicants
purported to cancel the written agreement.
This
is
an application in which the applicants seek confirmation of the
cancellation
of
the written agreement and for an order for the repayment of the
purchase
price
and the transfer
costs.
[2]
The contract does not stipulate the time for performance by the
respondent (the transfer of the property into the applicants'
names).
Clause 6 of the contract affords the respondent as seller the right
of cancellation pursuant to a letter of demand. The
same right is not
extended to the applicants as purchasers of the property.
[3]
Counsel for the respondent correctly conceded that the respondent
breached the terms of the contract by failing to transfer
the
property into the applicants' names within reasonable time but
challenged the allegation that the breach of the contract caused
the
respondent to be and remain
in
mora.
[4]
Counsel for the parties were in agreement that where a contract does
not fix a specific time for performance the general rule
laid down
in
Breytenbach
[2]
applies. This rule entails
that:
"Immediate
performance having been impossible and not contemplated, and no date
for transfer having been fixed by the contract,
the respondent, if he
considered that sufficient time had elapsed to enable him, on that
ground, to procure his own release should
have taken steps - as the
civilians express it - to place the appellant in mora by demanding
that transfer should be passed on
or before a specified date,
reasonable under the circumstances."
[5]
The further general rule stated in
Mackay
[3]
is
that
"obligations
for the performance
of which no
definite time is specified are enforceable forthwith ..., but the
Rule is subject to the qualification that
performance
cannot be demanded unreasonably so as to defeat the objects of the
contract or
to allow an insufficient time for compliance."
[6]
In
Willowdene
[4]
Claassen
J held that
"as
a
matter
of common sense, the time given [to perform] must be such as to
enable the other party acting reasonably to carry out his
outstanding
obligations within that time.”
[5]
In
a claim of the kind made in this application an applicant who
contends that a reasonable period has elapsed is expected to make
such an allegation
and
to
prove the facts upon which his contention is based.
[6]
[7]
The applicants' entitlement to the relief sought, therefore, turns on
whether they have discharged the onus referred to above
and discussed
in
Nel.
[7]
[8]
On 15 May 2015 (just short of one year and six months) the applicants
wrote as follows to the respondent and Fourie of attorneys
Enslin
&
Fourie, the attorneys appointed in terms of the contract to attend to
the
registration of
transfer:
"Koopkontrak
Import
Export 2020 (Pty) Ltd
I
LJ
&
ZGM
Humphries
Gedeelte [1…] van die plaas Verloren [7…]
KR
Ons
verwys na bogenoemde kontrak en bevestig dat ons opdrag ontvang het
vanaf die kopers om hierdie skrywe aan u te rig.
Ons
bevestig dat daar op 18 November 2013, te Modimolle, 'n koopkontrak
gesluit is tussen die maatskappy en ons kliente, ingevolge
waarvan
die bogenoemde eiendom, geregistreer op naam van die maatskappy, aan
hulle verkoop is vir die bedrag van R750 000.00.
lngevolge
die kontrak, moes die bedrag van R750 000.00 inbetaal word in die
rekening van die verkoper maatskappy. Ons bevestig dat
die bedrag we/
inbetaal is en deur u ontvang is.
Daar
is ook deur ons kliente voldoen aan die bepalings van klousule 2 van
die kontrak, deurdat die oordragskoste aan Mnre Enslin
& Fourie
oorbetaal is, soos versoek.
Dit
is u verpligting as verkoper in terme van klousule 3 van die kontrak
om die oordrag van die eiendom deur u prokureur te laat
fina/iseer
binne 'n redelike tyd.
Die
versuim van die maatskappy om die oordrag van die
eiendom
op naam van ons
kliente te bewerkstellig, stel kontrakbreuk daar
en ly ons kliente skade as gevolg daarvan.
Ons
gee u hiermee namens ons kliente kennis om binne 'n tydperk van 7
(sewe) dae bewys te fewer van indiening van die volgende transaksies
te die Aktekantoor Pretoria:
1.
Transport van Gedeelte [1…] van die plaas Verloren [7…]
KR, vanaf Import Export 2020 (Pty) Ltd aan LJ
&
ZGM
Humphries
2.
Kansellasie van alle bestaande verbande oor bogenoemde
eiendom.
lndien
u versuim om binne die gemelde tydperk die nodige bewys van indiening
te lewer, sal die kontrak as gekanselleer beskou word
en sal ons
kliente die volgende van u eis:
1.
Onmiddellike
terugbetaling
van die
voile bedrag van R750 000.00
aan
ons
kliente,
tesame
met
rente
daarop verdien;
2.
Terugbetaling van a/le oordragskostes aan Enslin
&
Fourie betaal;
3.
Skadevergoeding;
4.
Alie regskostes voortspruitend uit hierdie aangeleentheid. Ons
verneem graag van
u.
Die
uwe
_____________
CM
Humphries"
[9]
The respondent did not comply with the demand of 15 May 2015.
[10]
On 12 October 2015 (approximately five months later), the applicants'
attorney wrote to the respondent as follows:
"
KOOPOOREENKOMS
: LJ
&
ZGM
HUMPHRIES I IMPORT EXPORT 2020 (EDMS ) BPK : GED
[
1…]
VAN DIE
PLAAS VERLOREN ]7..] KR
Ons
verwys na bogemelde aangeleentheid en bevestig dat skrywer nou opdrag
ontvang het van mnr en mev Humphries, die kopers van [Erf
1…]
van die plaas Verloren [7…KR] (hiema 'die eiendom' genoem)
om
hierdie skrywe aan u te rig. Ons instruksies lui soos volg:
1
die
kopers het die koopooreenkoms
ten opsigte
van
die eiendom onderteken op 18 November 2013 en op
dieselfde dag is die aanbod deur die verkoper
aanvaar.
2
tien dae daarna op of ongeveer 22 November 2013 is
die
voile koopsom ingevolge die bepalings van klousule
1.1(a)
direk in Import Export 2020 se bankrekening inbetaal (ons merk dat
daar in die koopooreenkoms beurtelings na
die verkoper
as 'n maatskappy en 'n beslote korporasie verwys word en is onseker
met watter regspersoon ons in werklikheid te doen
het).
3
die verkoper het telkens met een of ander verskoning na
vore gekom oor waarom oordrag nie plaasvind nie.
4
die eensydig-opgestelde koopooreenkoms maak ruim voorsiening
vir remedies wat tot die verkoper is wanneer
die koper
kontrakbreuk sou pleeg, maar het geen
gelykluidende
remedies wat tot die koper se beskikking is wanneer
die
verkoper in kontrakbreuk sou verkeer nie.
5
lngevolge
klousule
3 van die
koopooreenkoms
moes die oordrag van die eiendom
gefinaliseer word deur die
verkoper se prokureur, mnr
Enslin
&
Fourie van Bela Bela by betaling deur die koper
van die koopsom enersyds
en
die
oordragkoste andersyds.
6
betaling van die oordragkoste in die bedrag van R15
787,90 het geskied op 18 Maart
2014.
7
desondanks het oordrag, alhoewel die koper kon verwag dat dit
binne 'n redelike periode moes geskied, nie geskied nie.
8
op 15 Mei 2015 het ans kollega mev Marina Humphries
van
Lynnwood in Pretoria
'n kansellasieskrywe
aan
u
kantoor gerig.
Volledigheidshalwe heg
ans
'n afskrif
van
daardie
skrywe hierby
aan.
9
u is op terme geplaas om binne sewe dae vanaf datum
van
ontvangs van die skrywe bewys te lewer van indiening van twee
transaksies by die kantoor van die Registrateur van Aktes te
Pretoria.
10
sodanige bewys is nie gelewer
nie.
11
op 2 Junie
2015 het u mnr
Fred
van Heerden,
instede daarvan om met ans klient
se vorige
prokureur
te korrespondeer,
'n skrywe direk aan mnr Humphries gerig waarin
u
om
verskoning
gevra
het
vir
die feit dat
die oordrag nag
nie plaasgevind het nie en gese dat u 'aanvaar
voile
verantwoordelikheid
vir enige ongerief
wat
veroorsaak
is omdat die transport nag nie
plaasgevind het
nie'.
12
u het oak ans klient die versekering gegee dat die verkoper
'binne 60 dae gereed (sal) wees om die eiendom in te dien
by
die Aktekantoor vir transportering op (julle)
naam'.
13
dit is amper onnodig om te se dat hierdie laaste
onderneming oak nie gestand gedoen is
nie.
Daar
het nou reeds feitlik vyf maande verloop vanaf datum van die
kansellasieskrywe deur mev Humphries.
Ons
het opdrag ontvang om die kooptransaksie te kanselleer, wat ans
hiermee doen.
Skrywer
hiervan het 'n telefoniese gesprek gevoer met mev Elmarie van der
Westhuizen van die prokureursfirma Enslin
&
Fourie, u oordragprokureurs. Sy het ans meegedeel dat die
transkaise steeds nie gereed is om ingedien te word vir registrasie
nie,
maar dat sy voorsien dat die moontlikheid bestaan dat dit binne
die volgende twee of drie weke gereed sal wees om as sodanig ingedien
te word.
U
moet asseblief kennis neem van die feit dat hierdie transaksie nou
gekanselleer
is
en dat u
asseblief u oordragprokureurs opdrag moet gee om die transaksie
as
sodanig te beskou en nie enige dokumentasie by die aktekantoor
in te dien nie. Ons verlang voorts dat u u prokureurs opdrag gee om
ons skriftelik mee te dee/ dat hulle die transaksie
as
gekanselleer sal beskou en dat hulle enige verdere
oordragshandelinge sal staak, by ontstentenis waarvan ons geen ander
keuse
sa/
he
as
om 'n hofaansoek te foods om 'n verbiedende interdik te kry om
Enslin
&
Fourie Prokureurs te verhoed om met die oordragshandelinge
voort te gaan.
Ons
het opdrag ontvang om u aan te maan, wat ons hiermee doen, om die
bedrag van R750 000,00 plus rente daarop teen die moratore
koers
soos
afgekondig deur die Minister van Finansies in die bedrag van
15,5% per jaar met ingang van 28 November 2013 tot op datum van
terugbetaling
op ons firma se trustrekening in te betaal, by
ontstentenis waarvan ons geen ander keuse
sal
he nie
as
om aksie
teen u maatskappy in te stel om die kapitaal plus rente te verhaal.
Ons het voorts opdrag ontvang om u aan te maan om toe
te sien dat die
oordragskoste in die bedrag van R15 787,90 wat deur ons klient by
Fourie
&
Ens/in
Prokureurs inbetaal is, insge/yks op ons firma se trustrekening in te
betaal, insgelyks met rente op daardie bedrag teen
15,5% per jaar
vanaf 17 Maart 2014 tot datum van betaling.
Ons
firma se trustrekeningbesonderhede lui
soos
volg:
COUZYN
HERTZOG
&
HORAK
TRUSTREKENING :
ABSA BANK
REKENINGNR
:
[
0…]
TAKKODE
….......
:
[
6…]
VERW
:.......................
:JB0/H433
Ons
sa
dit waardeer indien u
ontvangs hiervan
sal
erken.
Ons bevestig dat ons 'n afskrif van hierdie skrywe aan mnr Etienne
Fourie by Enslin
&
Fourie
aanstuur."
[11]
The letters of 15 May 2015 and 12 October 2015 record the history of
the transaction, records compliance by the applicants
with the
provisions of the contract in respect of payment of the purchase
price and transfer costs and record that the applicants
have
discharged their obligations in terms thereof.
[12]
The attention of the respondent and its transfer attorney is drawn to
the provisions of the contract stipulating the obligation
to register
transfer of the property within a reasonable time and further records
the failure of the respondent to effect transfer
and that such
failure is viewed by the applicants as a breach of contract.
[13]
The said letters of demand further inform in no uncertain terms the
reader thereof that it is expected of the addressees to
produce proof
of lodgement of the registration of transfer in the Deeds Office
Pretoria failing which the contract would be considered
cancelled and
repayment of the amounts paid by the applicants would be sought.
[14]
In
my
opinion
the
document
objectively
viewed
placed the respondent
in
mora.
No reason was advanced in the
correspondence or in the papers filed on record by the respondent to
prove that the time allowed
by the applicants for it to
perform was unreasonable.
Any
facts known to the respondent would fall within
its particular
knowledge and
it cannot
be expected of purchasers in
the position of the applicants to present facts as
to the reasons why the
respondent's default would be reasonable or, put differently, why the
applicants
interpellatio
allowed
insufficient time for the respondent to
perform.
[15]
In my view the applicants have lawfully cancelled the written
contract and are entitled to the relief sought.
ORDER
I
make the following order:
1.
The cancellation of the written agreement of purchase concluded
between the applicants and the respondent dated 18 November 2013
is
confirmed;
2.
The respondent is ordered to pay to the applicants the sum of R750
000.00;
3.
The respondent is ordered to pay to the applicants the sum of R15
787.90; and
4.
The respondent is ordered to pay to the applicants' interest on the
sum of R750 000.00 and the sum of R15 787.90 from 22 May
2015 to date
of payment at the prevailing statutory rate of interest in terms of
the
Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975
.
5.
The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' costs of this
application.
H
F JACOBS
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
Date:
26 August 2016
[1]
Clause 2 of the written agreement.
[2]
Breytenbach v Van Wijk
1923 AD 541
at 549.
[3]
Mackay v Naylor
1917 TPD 533
at 537.
[4]
Willowdene Landowners (Ply) Ltd v St Martin's Trust
1971 (1) SA 302
(T) at 307D-E.
[5]
Ver Elst v Sabena Belgian World Airlines
1983 (3) SA 637
(A) at
647H-648A.
[6]
Earle v Driman
1935 NPD 209
at 313.
[7]
Nel v Cloete
1972 (2) SA 150
(A).