Kriel NO and Another v Le Roux

The respondent (Le Roux) signed a written contract on 15 January 1996 to sell to the first appellant, acting on behalf of a nominated trust, the western portion of Erf 186 R. The property was described in the contract as the “western portion of Erf 186 R as indicated on annexure ‘A’”, with subdivision still to be effected. Annexure ‘A’ was a sketch plan showing the erf and a straight dividing line separating eastern and western portions, partly drawn as a solid line and partly as a dotted line. The respondent later contended that the contract was invalid under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 because the land sold could not be identified with sufficient certainty from the written contract without resort to inadmissible evidence. The appellants, as trustees, sued for enforcement. The Transvaal Provincial Division held the description inadequate and declared the contract invalid, prompting this appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the court a quo declaring the contract invalid was set aside and replaced with an order declaring the written contract of sale concluded on 15 January 1996 to be a valid contract, with costs awarded against the respondent. The matter was remitted to the court a quo for continuation. The appellants were granted condonation for late filing but ordered to pay the costs of that application and certain wasted costs relating to unnecessary record volumes.

The case confirms and clarifies South African law on the degree of certainty required for the description of land in written contracts under the Alienation of Land Act. It underscores the principle that courts favour interpretations upholding contractual validity and that property descriptions may be supplemented by objective, admissible evidence such as plans and physical features, without infringing the prohibition on extrinsic evidence of negotiations.