Vrededorp Properties CC purchased Erf 358 Selby together with a subdivided eastern portion of an adjacent railway siding (the blue portion) from Stand 160 Selby (Pty) Ltd in 1994. The agreement also entitled Vrededorp to register a servitude of right of way over the remaining portion of the siding (the green portion). Although Erf 358 was transferred, the blue portion was not subdivided or transferred before Stand 160 was liquidated. The liquidator sold the entire siding to Investec Bank Ltd, expressly acknowledging Vrededorp’s rights. Investec thereafter sold and transferred the whole siding to the F L B Trust, whose trustee was Francis Leslie Bowring NO. It was admitted that both Investec and the Trust had knowledge of Vrededorp’s rights at the time of purchase. Vrededorp sued the Trust for transfer of the blue portion and registration of the servitude. The High Court granted the relief. The Trust appealed, raising defences based on the doctrine of notice, privity of contract, and non-joinder of Stand 160 and Investec.
The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court order was amended to remove the obligation on the Trust to pay subdivision and transfer expenses, to incorporate Vrededorp’s tender to pay R50 000 to the liquidator of Stand 160, and otherwise to confirm the Trust’s obligation to transfer the blue portion to Vrededorp, facilitate registration of the servitude over the green portion, dismiss the Trust’s counterclaim, and pay Vrededorp’s costs of suit.
The case is a leading authority on the scope of the doctrine of notice in South African property law. It confirms that, in appropriate circumstances, a first purchaser may claim transfer directly from a subsequent purchaser who acquired property with knowledge of the prior right, and that rigid adherence to contractual privity should not defeat equitable outcomes. It also clarifies the approach to joinder in property disputes involving successive transfers.