Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Anglo American (OFS) Housing Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Steyn HR, De Beer AR, Van Blerk AR, Ogilvie Thompson AR en Ramsbottom AR
• Judgment Date: 13 June 1960
• Citation: 1960 (3) SA 642 (A)
• Hearing Date: 29 March 1960
• Court: Appellate Division

Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Anglo American (OFS) Housing Co Ltd
1960 (3) SA 642 (A)

1960 (3) SA p642

Citation	1960 (3) SA 642 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Steyn HR, De Beer AR, Van Blerk AR, Ogilvie Thompson AR en Ramsbottom AR
Heard	March 29, 1960
Judgment	June 13, 1960

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde F

Besit — Bona fide possessor — Nuttige verbeterings aangebring — Regte van possessor — Aard van — Inkomste — Hereregte — Ooreenkoms om grond te koop — Grond vir geboue nodig — Vergunning om sulke geboue op te rig — G Ooreenkoms dat waarde van geboue uitgesluit sou word — Koopaktes daarna aangegaan — Hereregte op waarde van grond alleen betaal — Billike markwaarde — Berekening van — Koper 'n bona fide possessor — Kommissaris moet in aanmerking neem dat dominium van eienaar deur regte van bona fide possessor verminder is — Denkbeeldige koper sou weet dat die H koopprys deur die regte van bona fide possessor affekteer sou word — Wet 40 van 1949 art. 5 (6).

Headnote : Kopnota

Per RAMSBOTTOM, A.R., (met wie OGILVIE THOMPSON, A.R., saamstem): Die regte van 'n bona fide possessor wat nuttige verbeterings aangebring het, om besit van die eiendom te behou of materiaal te verwyder, is regte in rem geskep deur regswerking wat, terwyl hulle bestaan, teen die hele wêreld heers. Hulle vorm 'n vermindering van die dominium op dieselfde manier as 'n tydelike serwituut.

Die 'O.F.S. Land and Estate Co. (Pty.) Ltd.', was die eienaar van grond waarop

1960 (3) SA p643

uitbreidings van die dorp Allanridge uitgelê is. In 1950 en 1951 het hy ingevolge mondelinge ooreenkoms die respondent in besit van 329 erwe in bedoelde uitbreidings gestel, met verlening van die reg om geboue daarop op te rig, en met die onderneming om, wanneer die dorpsplanne deur die Dorperaad goedgekeur is, die erwe aan die respondent te verkoop teen 'n prys wat die waarde van die geboue deur die respondent opgerig, sou uitsluit. Voordat die beloofde koop gesluit is, het die respondent A geboue ter waarde van ongeveer £900,000 op die erwe opgerig en het deurgaans in besit van die geboue gebly. In Mei en Julie 1952, is vyf afsonderlike koopaktes ten aansien van die erwe aangegaan, waarvolgens die totaal van die koopsom £129,555 beloop het. In al die koopaktes was die prys met uitsluiting van die waarde van die geboue bepaal. Die hereregte ten aansien van die kontraktuele vergoeding van £129,555 is betaal. Die appellant was nie hiermee tevrede nie en het van die respondent gevorder dat hy hereregte betaal op die billike waarde van B die erwe, met inbegrip van die geboue, op die datum van verkryging daarvan. Die addisionele bedrag was bygevolg onder protes betaal en die respondent het aansoek gedoen om 'n deklaratore bevel ten effekte dat die appellant by die bepaling van die billike waarde verplig was om in aanmerking te neem dat die respondent voor die aankoop as bona fide possessor nuttige verbeterings op die erwe aangebring het waardeur hulle waarde verhoog was, en dat die bedrag van verskuldigde hereregte C dienooreenkomstig bepaal moet word. So 'n bevel was toegestaan en die appellant het daarteen in hoër beroep gekom.

Beslis, deur STEYN, H.R. (VAN BLERK, A.R., het saamgestem), alhoewel die respondent nie 'n bona fide possessor was nie dat hy 'n retensiereg ten opsigte van die verbeterings geniet het.

Beslis, verder, dat die retensiereg die eienaar se dominium verminder het en dus kon die eienaar nie meer dan sy aldus verminderde dominium verkoop nie.

Beslis, verder, dat wat die appellant moes bereken, was die billike D markwaarde van die erwe en geboue onderworpe aan die retensiereg van die respondent en met die vermindering in die dominium wat daarmee gepaard gaan.

Beslis, verder, dat by daardie berekening hy nie 'n denkbeeldige koper mag veronderstel wat volle regte op die geboue sou kry nie.

Beslis, deur RAMSBOTTOM, A.R. (OGILVIE THOMPSON, A.R., het saamgestem), dat tussen die verkoper en die respondent, die respondent die reg gegee was om die erwe te besit, daarop te bou, die huise te okkupeer en daarop E te bly tensy hy betaling ontvang van die bedrag wat hy op die geboue bestee het.

Beslis, verder, dat die respondent die reg gehad het om die grond te koop onderworpe aan die regte wat hy alreeds besit het, vir die prys van onbewerkte grond.

Beslis, verder, dat 'n denkbeeldige koper presies sou gekoop het wat aan die respondent verkoop was, nl., die dominium in die grond onderworpe aan al die regte wat die respondent teen die verkoper gehad het.

Beslis, verder, dat in die bepaling van die billike waarde van die F eiendom toelating vir die regte van die respondent gemaak moes word.

Beslis, verder, dat as die respondent se regte bedreig was, hy geregverdig sou wees om sy regte as 'n bona fide possessor te eis.

Beslis, verder, dat as 'n eienaar grond verkoop wat in die besit van 'n bona fide possessor is, hy sodanige grond verkoop belas met die regte van 'n bona fide possessor.

Beslis, verder, dat die billike markwaarde wat 'n denkbeeldige koper sou G betaal geaffekteer sou word deur die bestaan van die regte van sodanige bona fide possessor.

Die beslissing in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling in Anglo American (O.F.S.) Housing Co. Ltd v Commissioner for Inland Revenue, 1959 (4) SA 279, bevestig.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Possession — Bona fide possessor — Useful improvements effected — Rights of Possessor — Nature of — Revenue — H Transfer duties — Agreement to purchase ground — Ground needed for buildings — Grant to erect such buildings — Agreement that value of buildings would be excluded — Sale agreements concluded — Transfer duties paid on value of ground alone — Fair market value — Calculation of — Purchaser a bona fide possessor — Commissioner to take in consideration that rights of ownership diminished by the rights of the bona fide possessor — Imaginary purchaser would buy with knowledge that price would be affected by the rights of the bona fide possessor — Act 40 of 1949 sec. 5 (6).

Headnote : Kopnota

Per RAMSBOTTOM, J.A. (OGILVIE THOMPSON, J.A., concurring): The rights of a bona fide possessor, who has effected useful improvements, to retain possession of the property or to remove the materials, are real rights created by operation of law which, while they exist, prevail against all the world. They constitute a diminution from the dominium in the same way as does a servitude which is limited in point of time.

The 'O.F.S. Land and Estate Co. (Pty.), Ltd.,' owned land for which the extension of the village Allanridge was laid out. In 1950 and 1951, as the result of an oral agreement the Company put the respondent in possession of 329 erven of the proposed extension, granting it also the right to erect buildings thereon and with the undertaking that whenever the plans for the village was approved by the village council it would sell the erven to it at a price which would not include the price of the buildings erected by the respondent. Before the promised sale was concluded, the respondent had erected buildings to the value of approximately £900,000 on the erven and had right throughout remained in possession of the buildings. In May and July, 1952, five separate agreements of sale in respect of the erven were entered into, in which the total purchase price amounted to £129,555. In all the agreements the purchase price was stipulated exclusive of the value of the buildings. The transfer fees in respect of the contractual liability of £129,555 was paid. The appellant was however dissatisfied and claimed that the repsondent should pay transfer fees on the fair value of the erven including the buildings as and from the date of acquisition. The additional amount was consequently paid under protest, and the respondent applied for a declaratory order to the effect that the appellant in fixing a fair value was bound to take into consideration that prior to the sale the respondent as a bona fide possessor had effected useful improvements on the erven which had increased their values and accordingly the amount of the transfer duty had to be determined. The Court granted the order and the appellant appealed.

Held, per STEYN, C.J. (VAN BLERK, J.A., concurring), that although the respondent was not a bona fide possessor he had enjoyed a right of retention in respect of the improvements.

Held, further, that the right of retention had diminished the dominium of the owner and thus the owner could sell no more than such diminished dominium.

Held, further, that what the appellant had to take into consideration in making such calculation was the fair market value of the erven and the buildings subject to the right of retention by the respondent and the consequent diminution in the dominium which accompanied it.

Held, further, that in such calculation the respondent could not imagine a purchaser who would obtain full rights of ownership in the buildings.

Held, per RAMSBOTTOM, J.A. (OGILVIE THOMPSON, J.A., concurring), that as between the seller and the respondent, the respondent was given the right to possess the ground, to build thereon and to occupy the houses and to remain thereon unless it was paid the amount spent on erecting the houses.

Held, further, that the respondent had the right to buy the ground subject to the rights which it already possessed for the price of the ground unimproved.

Held, further, that an imaginary buyer would buy exactly what had been sold to the respondent, viz., the dominium in the ground subject to all the rights that the respondent had against the seller.

Held, further, that in determining the fair value of the property allowance would have to be made for the respondent's rights.

Held, further, that if the respondent's rights were threatened it would be entitled to claim the rights of a bona fide possessor.

Held, further, that an owner of land who sold ground in the possession of a...