De Villiers v Elspiek Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Another

The appellant, Mr Matthys Pieter Ruben de Villiers, was the registered owner of a farm known as Elspiek in the Western Cape. On 25 January 2010 a 99‑year notarial lease of the entire farm was executed and registered in favour of the first respondent, Elspiek Boerdery (Pty) Ltd. The lease was executed on De Villiers’ behalf by an agent acting under a written power of attorney. The lease reserved to De Villiers and his family the right to reside indefinitely in the dwelling house on the farm. In 2012 De Villiers instituted action in the High Court seeking to have the lease declared void, deregistered, and to evict Elspiek, alleging that the agent lacked authority to conclude the lease and that the lease contravened sections 3(d) and 3(e)(ii) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act 70 of 1970. The High Court dismissed the claim, and De Villiers appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies the interpretation of powers of attorney in notarial transactions, confirming that clear wording and attached drafts can validly authorise agents to bind principals. It also provides important guidance on the application of sections 3(d) and 3(e)(ii) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, confirming that limited rights of occupation reserved to an owner do not constitute an unlawful subdivision or leasing of a portion of agricultural land.