Boland Bank Bpk v Engelbrecht en Andere

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Boland Bank Bpk v Engelbrecht en Andere
1996 (3) SA 537 (A)

1996 (3) SA p537

Citation	1996 (3) SA 537 (A)
Case No	281/95
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Botha AR, Nestadt AR, Nienaber AR, Marais AR, Plewman Wn AR
Heard	February 20, 1996
Judgment	March 29, 1996
Counsel	D E van Loggerenberg namens die appellant.; P P Delport SC namens die respondente.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde F

Behuising — Behuisingsontwikkeling vir afgetrede persone — Okkupasieregte kragtens art 4A gelees met omskrywing van 'reg van okkupasie' in art 1 van Wet op G Behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir Afgetrede Persone 65 van 1988 soos gewysig deur Wysigingswet op Behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir Afgetrede Persone 70 van 1990 — Beskerming van kragtens arts 4A, 4B en 4C van Wet — Nie bedoeling van Wetgewer om sodanige beskerming te verleen ten koste van gevestigde regte van verbandhouers wat verbande toegestaan het voordat okkupasieregte ontstaan het H en voordat wetgewing self bestaan het — Voormelde bepalings het nie retrospektiewe werking nie.

Behuising — Behuisingsontwikkeling vir afgetrede persone — Okkupasieregte kragtens art 4A gelees met omskrywing van 'reg van okkupasie' in art 1 van Wet op I Behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir Afgetrede Persone 65 van 1988 soos gewysig deur Wysigingswet op Behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir Afgetrede Persone 70 van 1990 — Wat uitmaak — Bepalings in kontrakte waarvolgens okkupasieregte verleen word wat voorsiening maak vir verbeuring van reg van okkupasie in geval van wangedrag of kontrakbreuk deur okkupeerder of in geval van gebeurlikhede J waaroor partye geen

1996 (3) SA p538

A beheer het nie, soos permanente ongeskiktheid, kranksinnigheid en ongeneeslike aansteeklike siekte van okkupeerder — Semble: Wetgewer het beoog dat verleende lewenslange okkupasiereg nie kanselleerbaar mag wees bloot as gevolg van eensydige wilsbesluit van eienaar of ontwikkelaar nie en in afwesigheid van enige B kontrakbreuk deur okkupeerder of enige van gebeurlikhede waar-oor partye geen beheer het nie — Sodanige bepalings in kontrakte doen nie afbreuk aan reg van okkupasie soos bedoel in Wet nie.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die doel van die Wet op Behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir Afgetrede Persone 65 van C 1988 soos gewysig deur die Wysigingswet op Behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir Afgetrede Persone 70 van 1990 is, onder andere, om beskerming te verleen aan persone wat in behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir afgetrede persone lewenslange okkupasieregte kragtens art 4A, gelees met die omskrywing van 'reg van okkupasie' in art 1, van die Wet bekom het, welke beskerming verleen word deur die bepalings van arts 4A, 4B en 4C. Dit was egter nie die bedoeling van die Wetgewer om sodanige beskerming te verleen ten koste van die gevestigde regte van verbandhouers wat verbande oor die eiendom waarop D die skema gebou is, toegestaan het nie alleenlik voordat sodanige okkupasieregte ontstaan het nie, maar ook voordat die wetgewing self bestaan het. Voormelde bepalings van die Wet soos gewysig het nie retrospektiewe werking nie. (Op 548J-549B en 551G/H, geparafraseer.)

Semble: Waar die kontrakte wat lewenslange regte van okkupasie, soos bedoel in art 4A, gelees met die omskrywing van 'reg van okkupasie' in art 1, van die Wet verleen, voorsiening maak vir die verbeuring van okkupasieregte in geval van wangedrag of E kontrakbreuk deur okkupeerders, of in geval van gebeurlikhede waaroor geeneen van die partye enige beheer het nie, soos byvoorbeeld die permanente ongeskikt-heid, kranksinnigheid en ongeneeslike aansteeklike siekte van 'n okkupeerder, beteken dit nie (soos in casu betoog) dat die okkupasiereg deur die verskeie kontrakte verleen nie 'die bevoegdheid verleen om 'n gedeelte in 'n behuisings-ontwikkelingskema te okkupeer vir die duur van die lewe van die koper of . . . iemand anders vermeld in die kontrak' soos in F die omskrywing van 'reg van okkupasie' in die Wet bedoel nie. Dit is redelik duidelik wat die Wetgewer beoog het, naamlik dat die verleende lewenslange okkupasiereg nie kanselleerbaar mag wees bloot as gevolg van 'n eensydige wilsbesluit van die eienaar of ontwikkelaar van die skema nie, en in die afwesigheid van enige kontrakbreuk deur die okkupeerder, of enige van die voornoemde gebeurlikhede waaroor die partye geen beheer het nie. Enige ander gevolgtrekking sal meebring dat weinig, indien enige, G lewenslange okkupasieregte wat aan die statutêre omskrywing daarvan voldoen, in die praktyk sal voorkom, en dat die beoogde beskerming deur feitlik niemand, of byna niemand, geniet sal word nie. (Op 546E-G en 547B-D.)

Die beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling in Engelbrecht en Andere v Erf 237 Riviera (Edms) Bpk en Andere omvergewerp.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

H Housing — Housing development for retired persons — Occupation rights in terms of s 4A read with definition of 'right of occupation' in s 1 of Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act 65 of 1988 as amended by Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Amendment Act 70 of 1990 — Protection of in terms of ss 4A, 4B and 4C of Act — Not intention of Legislature to confer such protection at expense of vested rights of mortgagees who had granted bonds before occupation rights had arisen and before legislation itself came into existence — Such provisions I not having retrospective operation.

Housing — Housing development for retired persons — Occupation rights in terms of s 4A read with definition of 'right of occupation' in s 1 of Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act 65 of 1988 as amended by Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Amendment Act 70 of 1990 — What constitutes — Provisions in contracts conferring occupation rights providing for forfeiture of right of occupation in case of misconduct or breach of contract or in case of J eventuality over which parties having no control, such as permanent disability,

1996 (3) SA p539

A insanity or incurable infectious illness of occupier — Semble: Legislature contemplating that lifetime right of occupation not capable of cancellation merely as consequence of unilateral decision of owner or developer and in absence of any breach of contract by occupier or any of eventualities over which parties having no control — Such provisions in contract not detracting from right of occupation as intended in Act.

Headnote : Kopnota

B The object of the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act 65 of 1988 as amended by the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Amendment Act 70 of 1990 is, inter alia, to give protection to persons who have acquired lifetime rights of occupation in development schemes for retired persons in terms of s 4A, read with the definition of 'right of occupation' in s 1, of the Act, which protection is provided for in the provisions of ss 4A, 4B and 4C. It was, however, not the intention of the Legislature to C give such protection at the expense of the vested rights of mortgagees who had granted mortgage bonds over the property on which the scheme was built not only before such occupation rights arose, but also before the legislation itself came into existence. The aforementioned provisions of the Act as amended do not have retrospective operation. (At 548J-549B and 551G/H, paraphrased.)

Semble: Where the contracts conferring lifetime rights of occupation, as intended in s 4A, D read with the definition of 'right of occupation' in s 1, of the Act make provision for the forfeiture of occupation rights in cases of misconduct or breach of contract by occupiers, or in cases of eventualities over which none of the parties has any control, such as, for example, the permanent disability, insanity or incurable infectious illness of an occupier, it does not mean (as contended in casu) that the right of occupation conferred by the various contracts does not 'confer the power to occupy a portion in a housing E development scheme for the duration of the lifetime of the purchaser or . . . any other person mentioned in the contract' as intended in the definition of 'right of occupation' in the Act. It is reasonably clear what the Legislature contemplated, namely that the (contractually) conferred lifetime right of occupation should not be capable of cancellation merely as a consequence of the unilateral decision of the owner or developer of the scheme, and in the absence of any breach of contract by the occupier, or of any of the aforementioned eventualities over which the parties have no control. Any other conclusion F would entail that few, if any, lifetime rights of occupation complying with the statutory definition thereof would occur in practice, and that the contemplated protection would be enjoyed by practically nobody, or almost nobody. (At 546E-G and 547B-D.)

The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Engelbrecht en Andere v Erf 237 Riviera (Edms) Bpk en Andere reversed.

Cases Considered

Annotations

Reported cases

G Die volgende besliste sake is in die uitspraak van die Hof aangehaal/The following decided cases were cited in the judgment of the Court:

Eden Village (Meadowbrook) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Edwards and Another 1995 (4) SA 31 (A)

Sekretaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Lourens Erasmus (Edms) Bpk 1966 (4) SA 434 (A).

Statutes Considered

Statutes

H Die volgende statute is deur die Hof oorweeg/The following statutes were considered by the Court:

Die Wet op Behuisingsontwikkelingskemas vir Afgetrede Persone 65 van 1988, arts 1, 4A, 4B en 4C/The Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act 65 of 1988, ss 1, 4A, 4B and 4C: sien/see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 1995 vol 6 op/at 2-248, 2-249 en/and 2-250 (vir die Afrikaanse weergawe van die Wet/for the Afrikaans version of the Act, sien/see Juta se Wette van Suid-Afrika 1991 vol 6 op/at 2-254 en/and I 2-256

Die...