Crots v Pretorius

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal
• Judge: Harms DP, Navsa JA, Snyders JA, Mhlantla JA and K Pillay AJA
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2010
• Citation: 2010 (6) SA 512 (SCA)
• Hearing Date: 01 September 2010
• Docket Number: 34/10
• Counsel: N Snellenburg for the appellant. JG Gilliland for the respondent.

Snyders JA (Harms DP, Navsa JA, Mhlantla JA and K Pillay AJA concurring):

[1] On 5 August 2005 the appellant discovered that he had become a E victim of stock theft when he found that nine of his gravid heifers had been stolen. His subsequent investigations led him to institute action in the Kroonstad Magistrate's Court against the respondent for payment of R45 000, the alleged value of the heifers. He alleged that the respondent had stolen and slaughtered his heifers. In response the respondent instituted a counterclaim in the amount of R50 000, alleging that the appellant defamed him by telling third parties that he had stolen the F heifers.

[2] The magistrate dismissed the appellant's claim and upheld the counterclaim in the amount of R20 000. An appeal to the Free State High Court (Bloemfontein), (Ploos van Amstel AJ, Van der Merwe J concurring) was dismissed. Leave to appeal was refused by the high G court, but granted on petition to this court.

[3] The condictio furtiva is a delictual action for the recovery of patrimonial loss as a result of theft. It is available to an owner or anyone who has an interest in the stolen thing, against a thief or his heirs. [1] H

[4] The respondent's version offers all the facts on which this case is to be decided. He is a stock speculator of seven years' standing. He knows about the provisions of the Stock Theft Act 57 of 1959 (the Act). A man who only introduced himself as Petrus, telephoned him. Petrus offered to sell nine head of cattle to him. He agreed on the basis that he would pay Petrus the price the cattle would fetch upon slaughter at the abattoir, less I

Snyders JA

A his commission. Petrus was satisfied with this arrangement. As Petrus had no transport available for the cattle, the respondent arranged for the collection of the cattle by a private transporter. Petrus did not disclose and the respondent did not ascertain the collection point for the cattle. They arranged that Petrus would send somebody to meet the truck B driver at a rendezvous point and accompany him to where the cattle had to be loaded. Pursuant to the respondent's arrangements nine of the appellant's gravid heifers were collected from his farm on 5 August 2005, taken to Country Meat abattoir in Kroonstad and slaughtered.

[5] Despite the respondent's usual practise to make payment to his C customers seven days after the sale, Petrus telephonically asked him the very next day for an advance on the money and he agreed. On 5 August 2005 he paid a R2000 cash advance to Petrus, without obtaining any form of acknowledgement of the payment. Needless to say, that was the last that was seen or heard of Petrus.

D [6] The respondent did not involve himself in the transaction beyond making the arrangements for the collection of the cattle and delivery to the abattoir. He made no attempt to comply with the Act. He did not ask for any of Petrus' details or credentials, nor of the cattle, their breed, age, whether or how they were branded or ear marked, or the place for collection of the cattle. [2] In fact, he left the Kroonstad area to attend to E business in Johannesburg.

[7] The provisions of ss 6 and 8, and potentially s 7, of the Act applied to the transaction and obliged the respondent to obtain a removal certificate from the owner of the cattle and to supply a document of identification, signed by him, to the abattoir. The removal certificate and F document of identification are designed to contain the details of, at least, the owner, the identifying features of the cattle and their destination. [3]

Snyders JA

The Act aims at preventing the removal and transport of livestock by A persons with no legal entitlement to do so. By his own admission the respondent knew his obligations in terms of the Act. No less is to be expected of a livestock speculator. Mr de Waal, the transporter who testified for the appellant, said that he specifically mentioned to the respondent...