Botha v Mazeka

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation1981 (3) SA 191 (A)

Botha v Mazeka
1981 (3) SA 191 (A)

1981 (3) SA p191


Citation

1981 (3) SA 191 (A)

Court

Appèlafdeling

Judge

Wessels AR, Trengove AR en Holmes Wn AR

Heard

March 17, 1981

Judgment

March 24, 1981

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Verkoping — Van verse — Lewering — Wat daarop neerkom — Koper het verse van boer gekoop en die koopsom in kontant betaal — Koper kon hulle nie verwyder totdat hy 'n permit gekry het nie — Koper het verse met sy brandyster gemerk — Verse daarna in 'n aparte kamp op die plaas ingejaag en aangehou — Nadat permit gekry is het koper lewering geëis — Boer het betoog dat lewering alreeds plaasgevind het en dat risiko aan koper oorgegaan het — Verhoorhof het tereg op die getuienis beslis dat lewering nog nie plaasgevind het nie — Verse slegs vir uitkenningsdoeleindes gemerk — Koper het geen fisieke beheer oor, of vrye toegang tot, die beeste verkry nie.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die respondent het 25 Afrikaner verse van die appellant, 'n boer, gekoop vir 'n bedrag van R2 070, en het onmiddellik die volle koopsom in kontant betaal. Hy kon egter nie in daardie stadium die verse verwyder nie omdat hy eers 'n permit moes kry. Gedurende die daaropvolgende week het hy dit gekry en die verse gaan haal, maar hy kon nie die boer se toestemming kry om die verse te verwyder nie. Uiteindelik het hy met welslae 'n aksie in 'n Provinsiale Afdeling ingestel vir lewering van die verse of, alternatiewelik, tiewelik, kansellasie van die kontrak en terugbetaling van die koopsom. In hoër beroep was namens die boer weer betoog dat lewering aan die koper alreeds plaasgevind het toe die koper, op die dag waarop hy die verse gekoop het, die verse met sy brandyster gemerk het en waarna hulle in 'n aparte kamp op die plaas ingejaag en aangehou was; en gevolglik dat die risiko op die koper oorgegaan het.

Beslis, dat, beskou teen die agtergrond van die aanvaarde getuienis, die brandmerk van die verse ten beste vir die boer 'n ambivalente handeling was: 'n boer merk dikwels beeste om aan te dui dat hulle sy eiendom is, maar dit is nie die enigste doel wat so 'n merk dien nie en uit die getuienis het dit geblyk dat die beeste slegs vir uitkenningsdoeleindes gemerk was.

Beslis, verder, hoewel die verse na die verkoping in 'n aparte kamp aangehou was, dat dit duidelik uit die getuienis was dat die koper nie daarmee fisieke beheer oor, of vrye toegang tot, die beeste verkry het nie.

Beslis, gevolglik, dat die Hof hoegenaamd nie oortuig was dat die Verhoorregter enigsins gefouteer het deur te bevind dat die verse nie aan die koper gelewer was nie.

Die beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling in Mazeka v Botha bevestig.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Sale — Of heifers — Delivery — What constitutes — Purchaser buying heifers from farmer and paying the purchase price in cash — Purchaser not able to remove them until he obtained a permit — Purchaser branding heifers with his branding iron — Heifers thereafter driven into a separate camp and held — After permit obtained purchaser demanding delivery — Farmer averring that delivery had already taken place and risk had passed to purchaser — Trial Court had rightly held on the evidence that delivery had not yet taken place — Cattle only branded for identification purposes — Purchaser having obtained no physical control over, or free access to, the cattle.

Headnote : Kopnota

The respondent had bought 25 Afrikaner heifers from the appellant, a farmer, for an amount of R2 070, and had immediately paid the full purchase price in cash. He could not, however, remove the heifers at that stage because he first had to obtain a permit. During the following week he obtained it and went to fetch the heifers, but he could not obtain the farmer's permission to remove them. Eventually he successfully instituted an action in a Provincial Division for delivery of the heifers or, alternatively,

1981 (3) SA p192

cancellation of the contract and return of the purchase price. In an appeal it was again contended on behalf of the farmer that delivery to the purchaser had already taken place when the purchaser, on the day on which he had purchased the heifers, had branded the heifers with his branding iron and whereafter they had been driven into a separate camp on the farm and held; and consequently that the risk had passed to the purchaser.

Held, that, regarded against the background of the accepted evidence, the branding of the heifers at best for the farmer was an ambivalent act: a farmer often branded cattle in order to indicate that they were his property, but it was not the only purpose which such branding served and it appeared from the evidence that the cattle had only been branded for identification purposes.

Held, further, although the heifers had been held in a separate camp after the sale, that it was clear from the evidence that the purchaser had not thereby obtained physical control over, or free access to, the cattle.

Held, therefore, that the Court was entirely unconvinced that the trial Judge had erred in any way in finding that the heifers had not been delivered to the purchaser.

The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Mazeka v Botha confirmed.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling (COETZEE R). Feite wat nie van belang is nie is uit die uitspraak van TRENGOVE AR weggelaat.

B R Southwood namens die appellant: If all the facts are properly taken into account it is clear that delivery of the cattle was effected as alleged by the appellant. In particular the cumulative effect of the aforegoing factors and the following factors, was such that the conclusion E that delivery took place was unavoidable: (1) The parties had concluded the sale of 25 Afrikaner heifers; (2) the cattle to be purchased by the respondent were chosen by him and then driven to one side; (3) the respondent had paid the purchase price in full and the appellant had handed the respondent a receipt; (4) after the purchase price was paid the F ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Eskom v Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...manu aan die eiser geskied het, sien Van der Merwe (op cit op 318-19); Groenewald v Van der Merwe 1917 AD 233 op 239; Botha v Mazeka 1981 (3) SA 191 (A) op 195F; Erasmus v M E Rosenberg Ltd 1910 TPD 1188; Page NO v Blieden & Kaplan 1916 TPD 606; Kaal Valley Supply Stores v Louw 1923 OPD N B......
  • Eskom v Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 26 March 1992
    ...made longa manu, and it constitutes one of the forms of fictitious, as distinguished from actual, delivery.' Sien ook Botha v Mazeka 1981 (3) SA 191 (A) op Die eiser het gevolglik nie bewys dat hy eienaar geword het van die J staal nie en hy was nie op 'n bevel tot lewering daarvan geregtig......
  • S v Langa en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...van hierdie saak verminder sy sg geringer aandeel egter, na my mening, nie sy morele verwytbaarheid nie. Hy het meegedoen aan 1981 (3) SA p191 Wessels rampokker optrede met kennis dat die ander appellante met vuurwapens bewapen was en van plan was om hulle te gebruik om moord te pleeg. Ten ......
3 cases
  • Eskom v Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...manu aan die eiser geskied het, sien Van der Merwe (op cit op 318-19); Groenewald v Van der Merwe 1917 AD 233 op 239; Botha v Mazeka 1981 (3) SA 191 (A) op 195F; Erasmus v M E Rosenberg Ltd 1910 TPD 1188; Page NO v Blieden & Kaplan 1916 TPD 606; Kaal Valley Supply Stores v Louw 1923 OPD N B......
  • Eskom v Rollomatic Engineering (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 26 March 1992
    ...made longa manu, and it constitutes one of the forms of fictitious, as distinguished from actual, delivery.' Sien ook Botha v Mazeka 1981 (3) SA 191 (A) op Die eiser het gevolglik nie bewys dat hy eienaar geword het van die J staal nie en hy was nie op 'n bevel tot lewering daarvan geregtig......
  • S v Langa en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...van hierdie saak verminder sy sg geringer aandeel egter, na my mening, nie sy morele verwytbaarheid nie. Hy het meegedoen aan 1981 (3) SA p191 Wessels rampokker optrede met kennis dat die ander appellante met vuurwapens bewapen was en van plan was om hulle te gebruik om moord te pleeg. Ten ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT