McKenzie v Farmers' Co-Operative Meat Industries Ltd
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | J Maasdorp JA, De Villiers JA, Juta JA and TER De Villiers AJA |
Judgment Date | 10 November 1921 |
Citation | 1922 AD 16 |
Hearing Date | 01 November 1921 |
Court | Appellate Division |
McKenzie Appellant v Farmers' Co-Operative Meat Industries Ltd Respondent
1922 AD 16
1922 AD p16
Citation |
1922 AD 16 |
Court |
Appellate Division, Bloemfontein |
Judge |
J Maasdorp JA, De Villiers JA, Juta JA and TER De Villiers AJA |
Heard |
November 1, 1921 |
Judgment |
November 10, 1921 |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde
Magistrate's court — Jurisdiction — Cause of action arising wholly within district — Act 32 of 1917, sec. 28 (1) (d) — Contract — Offer and acceptance.
Headnote : Kopnota
The expression "cause of action" in sec. 28 (1) (d) of Act 32 of 1917 means every fact which is material to be proved to entitle a plaintiff to in his claim The case of Belfort v Morton (1920 CPD 589) approved.
Plaintiff company brought action in the magistrate's court, Pietermaritzburg, to recover £120, being the balance due in respect of 1,000 shares in the company applied for by and allotted to defendant who neither resided nor carried on business in the Pietermaritzburg district. It appeared that defendant had applied for the shares by letter addressed to the secretary of the company at Pietermaritzburg and under the terms of such letter agreed to accept the number of shares allotted to him and to abide by the articles of association which he authorised the secretary to sign on his behalf. The shares were to be paid for at the company's office at Pietermaritzburg.
Held, that defendant by agreeing to take the number of shares allotted to him had indicated the manner in which his offer to buy the shares should be accepted and had thereby dispensed with communication of the acceptance as an essential to the conclusion of the contract, that the cause of action arose wholly within the district of Pietermaritzburg in terms of sec. 28 (1) (d) of Act 32 of 1917, and that the magistrate therefore had jurisdiction.
The decision of the Natal Provincial Division in Farmers' Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd. v McKenzie confirmed.
1922 AD p17
Case Information
Appeal from a decision of the Natal Provincial Division (DOVE-WILSON, J.P and TATHAM, J.), sitting as a Court of Appeal from a decision of the magistrate's court, Pietermaritzburg.
Plaintiff company sued defendant in the magistrate's court to recover £120, the purchase price of certain shares bought by defendant. Defendant excepted to the jurisdiction on the ground that he neither resided nor carried on business in the district of Pietermaritzburg and that there was no proof or allegation that the cause of action arose wholly within such district.
The magistrate upheld the exception and granted absolution from the instance, but on appeal to the Natal Provincial Division this decision was reversed.
Defendant now appealed.
The facts are stated in the judgment of MAASDORP, J.A.
C. L. Botha, K.C. (with him R. C. Streeten) for the appellant: The contract was concluded at Ixopo when the offer was made and when the acceptance was notified.
Acceptance is not complete till the offeror has been notified. See the authorities reviewed in Cape Explosives Works Ltd. v SA Oil and Fat Industries (1921, J.D.R. 115). The decision in that case was, I submit, wrong as it purported to be based on convenience. The decision is not in accordance with Roman law or Roman-Dutch law principles: see Moyle on Sale, p. 45; Digest, 47.7.1.14 and 15; 45.1.1 pr and 44.7.48; Goudsmit's Pandecten Systeem, Vol. II, sec. 225; Windscheid's Pandectensrechten, Vol. II, sec. 306; Vangerouw, Vol. III, sec. 603; Grotius De Jure Belli et pacis, 2.11.15; Voet, 5.1.73; Pothier on Sale, sec. 32; Muhlenbruch's Doctrina Pand, 3.2.331 of pars specialis; Fern Gold Mining Company v Tobias (3 S.A.R. 134); Bal v Van Staden (1902 T.S. 128, per SOLOMON, J.); Dietrichsen v Dietrichsen 1911, J.P.D at p. 995); R v Demboysky (1918, C.P.D at p. 241), and Opzoomer's Burgelijk Wet Boek, Vol. VI, p. 12.
As most of the Roman-Dutch authorities are in favour of the verneemings theory, see Cape Explosives' case (supra at p. 131), convenience is wholly a wrong basis for a decision. On the question of convenience: see BRAMWELL, L.J.'s dissenting judgments in British & American Telegraph Co. v Colson (L.R. 6 Exch at p. 117), and in Household Fire Insurance Co. v Grant (4 Exch. Div at p. 233); Pollock on Contracts (8th ed.), pp. 36 to 40 and
1922 AD p18
Traders' National Bank of Tullahoma v First National Bank of McMinneville (9 American Law Reports annotated 382 and annotation at p. 386).
Even if the contract was accepted at Pietermaritzburg, I submit the as the offer was made to the company's agent at Ixopo the cause of action did not wholly arise at Pietermaritzburg. If the legislature in sec. 28 of Act 32 of 1917 meant to include in the "whole cause of action" in a contract only the conclusion of a contract the word "wholly" would be superfluous. I submit that the whole cause of Action means all the elements that ultimately constitute a contract or a delict and that in the case of contract the legislature meant to include the offer and acceptance: see Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. I, p. 6, para. 3; Jackson v Spittal (L.R. 5, C.P. 542); Vaughan v Weldon (L.R. 10, C.P. 47); Allhusen v Malgarejo (L.R. 3, Q.B. 340); Payn v Hogg (1900, 2, Q.B at p. 54); Cook v Gill (L.R. 8, C.P. 107); Read v Brown Q.B.D. 128). In view of the previous statutes in regard to jurisdiction of magistrates the words...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd
...(2) SA 814 (A) at 838D–H, where Corbett JA madethe following pertinent remarks:‘In McKenzie v Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD16 this Court held that, in relation to a statutory provision defining thegeographical limits of the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court, ‘‘cause ......
-
Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide
...and Others 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC) (2010 (3) BCLR 239): dictum in para [67] considered McKenzie v Farmers' Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16: dictum at 23 Member of the Executive Council for Development Planning and Local Government, Gauteng v Democratic Party and Others 1998 (4) SA 11......
-
Hlumisa Investment Holdings RF Ltd and Another v Kirkinis and Others
...v Sentraboer (Koöperatief) Bpk 1981 (4) SA 239 (T): dictumat 245D–E appliedMcKenzie v Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16: dictumat 23 appliedNgqukumba v Minister of Safety and Security and Others 2014 (5) SA112 (CC) (2014 (7) BCLR 788; [2014] ZACC 14): dicta in paras [16]a......
-
Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Jessop and Another
...Life Assurance Co The Times January 23, 1985 Mazibuko v Singer 1979 (3) SA 258 (W) McKenzie v Farmers' Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16 Mgobozi and Others v The Administrator of Natal 1963 (3) SA 757 (D) Mias de Klerk Boerdery (Edms) Bpk v Cole 1986 (2) SA 284 (N) E Midland Bank ......
-
Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd
...(2) SA 814 (A) at 838D–H, where Corbett JA madethe following pertinent remarks:‘In McKenzie v Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD16 this Court held that, in relation to a statutory provision defining thegeographical limits of the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court, ‘‘cause ......
-
Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide
...and Others 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC) (2010 (3) BCLR 239): dictum in para [67] considered McKenzie v Farmers' Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16: dictum at 23 Member of the Executive Council for Development Planning and Local Government, Gauteng v Democratic Party and Others 1998 (4) SA 11......
-
Hlumisa Investment Holdings RF Ltd and Another v Kirkinis and Others
...v Sentraboer (Koöperatief) Bpk 1981 (4) SA 239 (T): dictumat 245D–E appliedMcKenzie v Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16: dictumat 23 appliedNgqukumba v Minister of Safety and Security and Others 2014 (5) SA112 (CC) (2014 (7) BCLR 788; [2014] ZACC 14): dicta in paras [16]a......
-
Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Jessop and Another
...Life Assurance Co The Times January 23, 1985 Mazibuko v Singer 1979 (3) SA 258 (W) McKenzie v Farmers' Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16 Mgobozi and Others v The Administrator of Natal 1963 (3) SA 757 (D) Mias de Klerk Boerdery (Edms) Bpk v Cole 1986 (2) SA 284 (N) E Midland Bank ......