Odendaalsrus Gold, General Investment and Extensions Ltd v Valuation Court and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Odendaalsrus Gold, General Investment and Extensions Ltd v Valuation Court and Others
1959 (1) SA 539 (O)

1959 (1) SA p539

Citation	1959 (1) SA 539 (O)
Court	Orange Free State Provincial Division
Judge	De Villiers J
Heard	October 14-16, 1958; October 17, 1958
Judgment	November 13, 1958

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Municipality — Rates — Valuation — Valuation roll — Framing of by valuer — Advertising of — Valuer cannot alter or H withdraw same — Only valuation court can amend roll — Ord. 6 of 1948 (O), sec. 90.

Headnote : Kopnota

Once a valuer has framed a valuation roll and has handed same to the Town Clerk and such roll has been advertised in terms of section 90 of Ordinance 6 of 1948 (O), he may not make any alteration therein or withdraw same. The only power to amend the roll is given to a properly constituted valuation court.

1959 (1) SA p540

Case Information

Action to review the decision of a valuation court. Facts not material to this report have been omitted.

A. Mendelow, Q.C., (with him J. P. G. Eksteen), for the plaintiff.

H. J. Edeling, Q.C., (with him F. S. Smuts), for the defendants.

Cur. adv. vult. A

Postea (November 13th).

Judgment

De Villiers, J.:

This is an action to review the decision of a valuation B court.

In or about 1954 and pursuant to the provisions of sec. 86 (1) of Ord. 6 of 1948 (O.F.S.), as amended, fourth defendant caused a valuation to be made of all immovable property in its area of jurisdiction and appointed C fifth defendant for the purpose of making such valuation. Fifth defendant thereupon purported to frame a valuation roll in terms of the requirements of sec. 88 of the Ordinance and, inter alia, valued the freehold of the surface rights in certain land, the property of plaintiff, and the improvements thereon, as follows: the land at £268,800 and the improvement at £444,550. After completion of the valuation roll it was laid before fourth defendant. A copy thereof lay D for inspection at the Town Office for the inspection of every owner, including plaintiff, and fourth defendant published in a local newspaper a notice calling upon owners and interested parties to lodge, in writing, with the Town Clerk, any objections which they may have against the valuations in the roll within a specified time mentioned in the E notice, all in terms of sec. 90 of the said Ordinance. Plaintiff, within the period specified in the aforesaid notice, lodged an objection to the valuation of the land and improvements mentioned aforesaid. In terms of sec. 91, first, second and third defendants were duly appointed as a valuation court, with first defendant as chairman. The valuation court proceeded to consider the valuation roll and the objections F thereto, including that of plaintiff on the 7th February, 1955. At the hearing of plaintiff's objection on the latter date it appeared from the evidence of the fifth defendant that he had not made a thorough inspection of the improvements. It was suggested by Mr. Horwitz, who appeared for plaintiff, that the court should order fifth defendant to G revalue. The court held:

'The position is that this court feels that to ask the valuer to make a revaluation might not be the correct procedure. But in view of the fact that this court is not satisfied with this valuation, the court will subject itself to the provisions laid down in sec. 91 (4) of Ord 6 of 1948, and the court therefore finds that it is advisable to call evidence as to the actual cost of erection of the improvements . . .

The court will, furthermore, reserve all rights to call, independently, all further evidence as to further valuation of this property.' The H court intimated that it would be appreciated if plaintiff discussed the matter with the manager of Freddies Consolidated Mines Ltd., apparently the owner of the mineral rights on the said land, and the court was informed of the right person to be summonsed. The hearing was thereupon postponed for one month and during that period the court was to be advised by the plaintiff of the person or persons to be summonsed. Pursuant to the above. Mr. Crewe-Brown, the estates

1959 (1) SA p541

De Villiers J

manager of Freddies Consolidated Mines was subpoenaed. On the 2nd May, 1955, the court reassembled and Mr. Crewe-Brown handed in a schedule setting out the estimated cost of the improvements in question. During cross-examination it appeared that his evidence was hearsay and the A court decided to adjourn sine die, so that the said Mr. Crewe-Brown could negotiate with his head office in regard to the obtaining of evidence other than hearsay, and notify the secretary of the court of the result of such negotiations. The court further instructed fifth defendant to make an 'ordinary' inspection of the said improvements and B that a letter of authority be handed to him by fourth defendant. Mr. Ross was thereafter indicated as being the person who could give the necessary evidence. He was subpoenaed and the adjourned hearing was fixed for the 20th May, 1955. This hearing was subsequently postponed to the 20th July, 1955, and eventually at the request of plaintiff to the 3rd August, 1955. In granting the last postponement the court intimated C that no further postponements would be granted. On the 3rd August, 1955, Mr. Ross handed in a schedule showing the costs of erection of the improvements in question and stated in answer to the court that the valuation of fifth defendant was in his view reasonable. In answer to Mr. Horwitz, who again appeared for plaintiff, he admitted that the D schedule had been prepared by his head office and that he personally had no notes or details of the actual costs. He could not personally vouch that all the improvements on the schedule were actually situated on the land in question. In answer to the court he stated that he had no reason to think that the figures in the schedule were incorrect. Next fifth defendant testified to the effect that he had made a personal E inspection of the improvements and handed in a schedule showing a total valuation of £604,260. In cross-examination by Mr. Horwitz he answered as follows:

'82. Mr. Horwitz: You say you came to the total value of £604,260 which is the present replacement value after taking into consideration depreciation.

83. Mr. Bruwer: Yes.

84. Mr. Horwitz: How does that compare with the previous valuation?

85. Mr. Bruwer: There is a considerable difference.

F 86. Mr. Horwitz: Your first valuation was £444,550. You therefore withdraw your first...