Lombaard v Droprop CC and Others

The appellant, Mr Jan Antonie Lombaard, was the lessee of immovable property owned by Droprop CC. The lease contained an option to purchase the property, which Lombaard exercised. He sought an order compelling transfer of the property described as Portion 526 (of 432) of the Farm Melk Houte Kraal No 789. Droprop resisted the application, contending that the agreement was invalid for non-compliance with s 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 due to an allegedly inadequate property description, and further that the lease and sale did not reflect the parties’ true intention, as only a demarcated portion of the property had been leased. Lombaard proceeded by motion and declined to engage with or rebut the factual allegations supporting rectification.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case clarifies that the use of the word 'certain' does not by itself invalidate a property description under the Alienation of Land Act. It affirms that rectification may be raised as a defence without a formal counterclaim, even in matters involving statutory formalities, provided the written contract is otherwise compliant. The judgment reinforces the application of the Plascon-Evans rule and highlights the risks of proceeding by motion where material disputes of fact exist.