Smit v Saipem

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 25 September 1974
• Citation: 1974 (4) SA 918 (A)

Smit v Saipem
1974 (4) SA 918 (A)

1974 (4) SA p918

Citation	1974 (4) SA 918 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	van Blerk AR, Wessels AR, Jansen AR, Rabie AR en Hofmeyr AR
Heard	March 22, 1974
Judgment	September 25, 1974

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Oortreding — Skadevergoeding geëis — Eis deur koper van grond in besit en okkupasie — Koper geregtig daaraan as houer (okkupeerder) — Praktyk — Partye — Eis deur wettige okkupeerder van grond om skadevergoeding weens skade B aan grond — Wanneer geregtig om waardevermindering van die grond te verhaal.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die appellant het drie erwe gekoop en elke verkoopkontrak het bepaal dat "besit en okkupasie van die eiendom sal aan die koper gegee word op datum van ondertekening hiervan deur die koper vanaf welke datum alle risiko ten opsigte van die eiendom op die koper sal oorgaan", maar transport sou slegs geskied "as C die koopprys, rente, koste en ander gelde hierkragtens betaalbaar, ten volle betaal of verseker is". Die appellant wat besit en okkupasie geneem het, het 'n aksie om skadevergoeding teen die respondent ingestel op grond daarvan dat respondent "wrongfully, unlawfully and contumeliously trespassed on the erven by (a) driving heavy earthmoving machinery over the erven; (b)... etc.", as gevolg waarvan appellant skade gely het. Appellant het verder beweer dat die skadevergoeding "represents the diminution in the market value of the erven which was caused by the (respondent's) conduct". Ingevolge D respondent se "main plea" is beweer dat, aangesien die appellant nie die eienaar van die erwe was nie, respondent nie aan hom vir skadevergoeding aanspreeklik was nie. Appellant se eksepsie teen die "main plea" is van die hand gewys. In hoër beroep,

Beslis, aangesien die appellant die houer (okkupeerder) van die erwe was, dat 'n skadevergoedingsaksie aan hom toekom en dat hy die waardevermindering van die erwe kon verhaal (RABIE, A.R., afwykend).

E Die beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling in Smith v Saipem, 1973 (4) SA 335, omvergewerp. F

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Trespass — Damages claimed — Claim by purchaser of land in possession and occupation — Purchaser entitled thereto as holder (occupier) — Practice — Parties — Claim by lawful occupier of land for damages for damage to land — When entitled to recover the diminution in value of the land.

Headnote : Kopnota

The appellant had purchased three erven and each deed of sale provided that "possession and occupation of the property shall be given to the purchaser on date of signature hereof by the G purchaser, from which date all risk in respect of the property shall pass to the purchaser", but transfer would only take place "if the purchase price, interest, costs and other sums payable in terms hereof, are fully paid or secured". The appellant, who had taken possession and entered into occupation, had instituted an action for damages against the respondent on the ground that respondent had "wrongfully, unlawfully, and contumeliously trespassed on the erven by (a) driving heavy earthmoving machinery over the erven; (b)... H etc.", as a result whereof appellant had suffered damage. Appellant further alleged that the damages "represents the diminution in the market value of the erven which was caused by the (respondent's) conduct". In respondent's "main plea" it was averred that, as the appellant was not the owner of the erven, he was not liable to him for damages. Appellant's exception to the main plea having been dismissed, in an appeal,

Held, as the appellant was the holder (occupier) of the erven, that an action for damages accrued to him and that he could recover the diminution in value of the erven (RABIE, J.A., dissenting).

The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Smith v Saipem, 1973 (4) SA 335, reversed.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling (TRENGOVE, R.). Die feite blyk uit die uitsprake.

1974 (4) SA p919

R. K. R. Zeiss, namens die appellant: The Court a quo correctly held that if a lawful possessor and occupier of property can show that he has suffered damages as a result of trespass to such property, he would be entitled to maintain an action for damages for trespass in his own right. Maasdorp v Malan, A (1875) 5 Buch. 136; Theron v Nieuwenhuizen, (1898) 15 S.C. 27; Johannes Vos v The Colonial Government, (1891) 12 N.L.R. 337; Van Rensburg's Estate v Fichat, 1938 E.D.L. at pp. 69 - 70; Thomas v Guirguis, 1953 (2) SA at pp. 38A - H; Kanniappen v Govender, 1962 (1) SA at pp. 101, 104G; Morkel's Transport v Melrose Foods and Another, 1972 (2) SA at p. 480; McKerron, Law of Delict, 7th ed., pp. 225 et seq. B The Court a quo erred by holding that "as the plaintiff does not claim to be the owner of the properties concerned, he cannot claim payment for damages based merely upon the resulting diminution in the market value of such properties without a cession of the action from the owner thereof". The Court a quo in support of its aforesaid finding relied firstly C on Moodley v Bondcrete (Pty.) Ltd. and Another, 1969 (2) SA at p. 372G; Rondalia Finansierings Korporasie van Suid-Afrika Bpk. v Hanekom, 1972 (2) SA at p. 117. The passages quoted which are in any event obiter dicta overstate the position in that the limitation contended for does not apply to a bona fide possessor, but applies only to holders of lesser rights such as a borrower for use, a fuller or a bailee. A bona fide possessor D is entitled to bring the Aquilian action on the same basis as the owner. Voet, 9.2.10; Swart v Van der Vyver, 1970 (1) SA at p. 647F - H; Erasmus v Mittel and Reichman, 1913 T.P.D. at pp. 622 - 623, 628 - 629; Sulaiman v Amardien, 1931 CPD at p. 511; Matthee v Schietekat, 1959 (1) SA at p. 348B - E D; Setlogelo v Setlogelo, 1921 OPD at p. 165; Maraisburg Divisional Council v Wagenaar, 1923 CPD at p. 6; Smit and Shapiro v Van Heerden, 1941 T.P.D. 228. The position of the purchaser of a motor car under a hire-purchase contract has (for purposes of the Aquilian action) been equated with the position of a bona fide possessor, Lean v Van der Mescht, 1972 F (2) SA at pp. 109C - 111C; Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Anglo-American (O.F.S.) Housing Co., 1960 (3) SA at p. 649B - E; in any event respondent's main plea does not traverse the allegation of civil possession. The rights of the appellant in the instant case are stronger than the rights of the purchaser of a motor car under a hire-purchase agreement and are even stronger than the rights of a bona fide possessor G of a movable by virtue of the fact that sec. 14 as read together with sec. 2 (c) of the Sale of Land on Instalments Act, 72 of 1971, confers on appellant a real right which does come close to full common law ownership. In the alternative and assuming that appellant's right is indeed of such a limited nature as is envisaged by the above-cited passages of Moodley's H case and Hanekom's case (which is not conceded), the appellant has nevertheless locus standi to base his claim on the diminution of the market value of the properties for the following reasons. (i) The value of appellant's right to the properties in terms of the deeds of sale (which includes the right to possess and to alienate) is determined by the market value of the properties; by virtue of the fact that in terms of the deeds of sale the risk has passed to appellant, a diminution in the market value of the properties

1974 (4) SA p920

is tantamount to a diminution of appellant's right to the properties and thus tantamount to a diminution of appellant's patrimony to the exent to which the market value of the properties has been diminished; (ii) The action for damages A caused by trespass rests in the possessor or occupier. The owner who does not possess or occupy, can only sue on trespass if he can show that his right of reversion has been adversely affected; Van Rensburg's Estate v Fichat, 1938 E.D.L. at p. 69; Thomas v Guirguis, 1953 (2) SA at pp. 38E, 38G - H; Kanniappen v Govender, 1962 (1) SA at p. 105A - B; Morkel's Transport v Melrose Foods and Another, 1972 (2) SA at p. B 480D - E. It is not alleged in the pleadings that the owner's right of reversion has been adversely affected. (Cf. Thomas' case, supra, pp. 38E, 38G - H). Accordingly if the Court a quo were to be correct in holding that appellant has no locus standi to base his claim on the diminution of the market value of the properties, neither appellant nor the owner could C sue on this basis. It is on this point that leave to appeal was granted by the Court a quo.

On the assumption that the respondent will seek to attack the first portion of the judgment of the Court a quo on the strength of Laubscher v Paterson, 1972 (2) P.H. J20, this case has been wrongly decided and should not be followed. See D Spolander v Ward, 1940 CPD at pp. 26, 32. Spolander's case has found general acceptance; see Moosa v Mohamed, 1940 NPD at p. 440; Smit & Shapiro v Van Heerden, 1941 T.P.D. at p. 231; Nienaber v Union Government, 1947 (1) SA at p. 397; Sulaiman v Amardien, 1931 CPD at p. 511; Moodley v Bondcrete (Pty.) Ltd., 1969 (2) SA at p. 373B - F. In Kruger v Strydom, 1969 (4) SA at pp. 310E, 313B - D, Spolander's E case was criticised obiter. In Lean v Van der Mescht, 1972 (2) SA at p. 107, the obiter dictum expressed in Strydom's case, criticising Spolander's case was referred to with approval. But it was held that a hire-purchase purchaser could sue in respect of damages to the vehicle without cession from F the owner. See further Sulaiman v Amardien, 1931 CPD at p. 511; Rondalia v Hanekom, 1971 (2) SA at p. 114. In the light of the aforegoing Laubscher v Paterson has been wrongly decided. Furthermore Laubscher's case must also be distinguished on the basis that appellant has a real right by virtue of the Sale of Land on Instalments...