Borcherds NO v Rhodesia Chrome and Asbestos Co Ltd
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Wessels JA, Curlewis JA and Stratford JA |
Judgment Date | 20 November 1929 |
Citation | 1930 AD 112 |
Hearing Date | 12 November 1929 |
Court | Appellate Division |
Stratford, J.A.:
The parties in this case brought a stated case before the High Court of Southern Rhodesia for a decision on their respective contentions. The learned Judge upheld the contention of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs.
The plaintiff now appeals to this Court.
It is unnecessary to re-state the facts set out in the stated case, for the purpose of these reasons a short outline of one transaction will suffice.
In 1920 the Union of Rhodesia Trust Company sold certain claims known as the Ethel Mine, of which it was the registered owner, to the British Chrome Company for the sum of £180,000. No transfer of the claims was passed to the latter company. On the 27th October, 1928, the British Chrome Company sold its interest in these claims for £6,855 16s. 10d to the defendant company and application was made to the plaintiff in November for registration of the transfer to the defendant company. The question then arose whether the duty payable on such transfer under the
Stratford, J.A.
provisions of Ordinance No. 19 of 1903 should be assessed upon the sum of £180,000 or upon the sum of £6,855 16s. 10d. The plaintiff contended that the consideration payable to the registered holder on the first sale, namely £180,000 was the proper amount on which to assess the duty; the defendant contended that the duty should be assessed on £6,855 16s. 10d.
The question must be answered upon a true construction of the provisions of Ordinance No. 19 of 1903, as amended by subsequent Ordinances. Sec. 59 of that Ordinance in its amended form reads as follows:-
Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, any claimholder registered as the holder of a mining location, or of any interest therein, may make application to the Mining Commissioner for the transfer of the whole or any portion of his interest in such location to any person or company entitled to he registered as the holder thereof, and every such transfer shall be effected at the office of such Mining Commissioner when a register shall be kept in which full particulars as to such transfer shall be inscribed, such particulars to include the names of the parties to the transaction, the name and official number of the location, and the nature and amount of the stipulated consideration, and the extent of the interests transferred.
Every such application as aforesaid shall be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the transferor and transferee, and shall be accompanied by the above particulars, and by:
Declarations of transferor and transferee as in the next succeeding section mentioned, together with a notarially certified copy of any and every agreement between the transferee and transferor relating to the sale of the location or of any interest therein;
The last issued certificate of registration or of special registration of the location, as the case may be;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Such declarations and certificates as aforesaid shall be filed in the office of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rex v Mpanza
...v Minister of Native Affairs and Others (1946 W.L.D. 11th March, unreported); Borcherds N.O. v Rhodesia Chrome & Asbestos Co., Ltd. (1930 AD 112); Simms v Registrar of Probates (1900, A.C. 323 at 335). The exemption of a Native effects a change of status and such Native becomes subject to t......
-
Union Government v Willemse
...at p. 1076); Principal Immigration Officer v Bhula (1931 AD 323 at pp. 333-6); Borcherds N.O. v Rhodesia Chrome and Asbestos Co. Ltd. (1930 AD 112 at p. 121); Condon v Minister of Defence (1915, E.D.L. 417 at p. 426); Principal Immigration Officer v Purshotam (1928 AD 435 at pp. 443, 450). ......
-
Visser, NO v Die Sekretaris van Binnelandse Inkomste
...Israelsohn v Commissioner for Inland Revenue, 1952 (3) SA 529 (AA) te bl. 540; Borcherds, N.O. v. A Rhodesia Chrome and Asbestos Co. Ltd., 1930 AD 112 te bl. 119; Badenhorst and Others v Commissioner for Inland Revenue, 1955 (2) SA 207 (N) te bl. 215; Steyn, Uitleg van Wette, bl. 101, 103, ......
-
Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Executor, Frith's Estate
...cases Boland Bank Ltd v The Master and Another 1991 (3) SA 387 (A): referred to D Borcherds NO v Rhodesia Chrome and Asbestos Co Ltd 1930 AD 112: dictum at 119 Case No ED68/99 2000 (7) JTLR 242 (Tvl Sp Crt): confirmed on appeal Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Estate Crewe and Another 1943......
-
Rex v Mpanza
...v Minister of Native Affairs and Others (1946 W.L.D. 11th March, unreported); Borcherds N.O. v Rhodesia Chrome & Asbestos Co., Ltd. (1930 AD 112); Simms v Registrar of Probates (1900, A.C. 323 at 335). The exemption of a Native effects a change of status and such Native becomes subject to t......
-
Union Government v Willemse
...at p. 1076); Principal Immigration Officer v Bhula (1931 AD 323 at pp. 333-6); Borcherds N.O. v Rhodesia Chrome and Asbestos Co. Ltd. (1930 AD 112 at p. 121); Condon v Minister of Defence (1915, E.D.L. 417 at p. 426); Principal Immigration Officer v Purshotam (1928 AD 435 at pp. 443, 450). ......
-
Visser, NO v Die Sekretaris van Binnelandse Inkomste
...Israelsohn v Commissioner for Inland Revenue, 1952 (3) SA 529 (AA) te bl. 540; Borcherds, N.O. v. A Rhodesia Chrome and Asbestos Co. Ltd., 1930 AD 112 te bl. 119; Badenhorst and Others v Commissioner for Inland Revenue, 1955 (2) SA 207 (N) te bl. 215; Steyn, Uitleg van Wette, bl. 101, 103, ......
-
Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Executor, Frith's Estate
...cases Boland Bank Ltd v The Master and Another 1991 (3) SA 387 (A): referred to D Borcherds NO v Rhodesia Chrome and Asbestos Co Ltd 1930 AD 112: dictum at 119 Case No ED68/99 2000 (7) JTLR 242 (Tvl Sp Crt): confirmed on appeal Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Estate Crewe and Another 1943......