THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case number: 664/08

In the matter between:

SOUTHERNERA RESOURCES LIMITED

APPELLANT

and

ALLAN GEORGE FARNDELL NO
(in his capacity as the Executor of the
Estate of the late Marjorie Diana Dent
(Estate Number 20514/1998))

RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
SouthernEra Resources Ltd v Farndell (664/2008) [2009]
ZASCA 150 (27 November 2009)

CORAM:

Mpati P, Mthiyane JA, Lewis JA, Mhlantla JA et Hurt
AJA

HEARD:

10 November 2009

DELIVERED:
27 November 2009

SUMMARY:
Sale of mineral rights – suspensive condition – sale
complete (perfecta) upon fulfilment of condition – risk and
benefit pass to purchaser on sale becoming perfecta –
risk of loss or destruction of object of sale on purchaser.

ORDER

On appeal from:
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Bam AJ
sitting as court of first instance).
The appeal is dismissed with costs, which shall include the costs consequent
upon the employment of two counsel.

JUDGMENT

MPATI P (Mthiyane JA, Lewis JA, Mhlantla JA et Hurt AJA concurring):

[1] The only issue in this appeal is whether a sale of mineral rights had
become perfecta before the date on which it became impossible for the seller
to give transfer of the rights to the purchaser by way of registration of cession.
The resolution of this issue entails a consideration of the question whether a
stipulation in the written agreement of sale of the mineral rights constitutes a
term or a condition.

[2] The facts are common cause. On 30 September 1995 the Estate of the
late Marjorie Diana Dent ('the estate'), represented by the respondent in his
capacity as executor, concluded a written agreement ('the agreement') with
the appellant in terms of which the estate sold to the appellant certain mineral
rights 'in, on and under' the farm Duitschland 95, situated in the Registration
Division KS, Northern Province. The agreed purchase price was
R1 792 269.64. It was to be paid in cash against registration of cession of the
mineral rights into the name of the appellant. In terms of the agreement the
appellant was required, within 30 days of the date of signature of the
agreement, to furnish a bank guarantee as security for payment of the
purchase price. The appellant's attorneys were to attend to the preparation

and registration of the Notarial Deed of Cession of Mineral Rights.1
Subsequent to the conclusion of the agreement the appellant furnished the
required guarantee. However, due to uncertainty relating to the identity of
heirs in the estate, there was a delay in the respondent obtaining the
necessary consent to the sale from the Master of the High Court ('the
Master'). Consequently, the guarantee was returned to the appellant, at its
request, on the understanding that it would be furnished once the identity of
the heirs had been confirmed.

[3] On 14 December 2001 the parties concluded an addendum to the
agreement in terms of which clause 3.1 of the original agreement was
amended to read as follows:
'The purchase price of the Mineral Rights is the sum of R1 792 269.64 . . . which
amount will be paid in cash against registration of cession of the Mineral Rights into
the name of the Purchaser. As security for the payment of the purchase price, the
Purchaser will, within 14 (fourteen) days from the date on which the Purchaser is
informed in writing by the Seller that the Master of the High Court has issued a
certificate in terms of Section 42(2) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965 . . .
consenting to the sale of the Mineral Rights, furnish Seller's attorney with a bank
guarantee or guarantees as required and approved of by the Seller or the Seller's
attorney payable to the Seller or the Seller's nominee/s forthwith upon registration of
cession at such place or places as the Seller stipulates.'
On 21 April 2004 the Master issued a certificate embodying his consent to the
sale and on 22 April 2004 the respondent's attorneys dispatched a letter to the
appellant's attorney advising of this fact. The letter elicited no response from
the appellant. In terms of the agreement the appellant was required to furnish
the bank guarantee by 6 May 2004.

[4] On 1 May 2004 s 3(1)(m) of the Deeds Registries Act2 ('the Act') was
repealed.3 The subsection had provided that –
'[t]he registrar shall, subject to the provisions of this Act –
. . .

1 A Notarial Deed of Cession of Mineral Rights was signed by the respondent on 10 October
2000.
2 47 of 1937.
3 By s 53 of the Mining Titles Registration Amendment Act 24 of 2003.

(m)
register notarial cessions, leases or sub-leases of rights to minerals and
notarial variations of such cessions, leases or sub-leases, notarial cessions of
such registered leases or sub-leases . . . ;

. . . '
The effect of the repeal of s 3(1)(m) of the Act was that registration of
cessions of mineral rights could no longer be effected.

[5] On 22 November 2004 the respondent's attorney caused to be
delivered by hand, at the appellant's chosen domicilium, a letter by which the
appellant was again advised that the Master's consent to the sale had been
secured. The appellant was also requested to furnish the required bank
guarantee. An identical letter was sent to the appellant's chosen domicilium by
registered post. The appellant failed to respond and on 16 February 2005 the
respondent's attorney sent a pre-paid registered letter to the appellant
notifying it of its breach of the terms of the agreement.4 The notice of breach
was also ignored.

[6] In terms of clause 6 of the agreement the respondent was entitled, in
the event of the appellant (as the defaulting party) failing to remedy the
breach, 'to claim immediate performance and/or payment from the [appellant]
of all its obligations in terms of this agreement, whether or not the same are
then due for performance or payment'. Following another letter to the
appellant dated 17 March 2005, in which the respondent's attorneys advised
that the respondent was to 'implement its rights under the agreement', the
latter instituted motion proceedings in the high court seeking, as against the
appellant, an order for payment of the purchase price and other ancillary
relief. The appellant opposed the order sought on the ground that the repeal
of s 3(1)(m) of the Act rendered it impossible in law to effect registration of
cessions in mineral rights as from 1 May 2004. The agreement, so the
appellant's defence continued, accordingly lapsed due to supervening
impossibility of performance. The respondent could not effect delivery of the
merx.

4 The written agreement required that a party in breach be notified of the breach and called
upon to remedy it within 14 days.

[7] The respondent's case that the sale of the mineral rights was complete
(perfecta) by 1 May 20045 was upheld by the court a quo (Bam AJ), which
gave judgment in favour of the respondent as prayed. This appeal is with its
leave.

[8] That the repeal of the statutory provision that enabled registration of
cession of mineral rights made performance by the respondent (as seller)
superveningly impossible is not in dispute. As a general proposition, a party to
a contract is discharged from his/her obligation if impossibility of performance
supervenes on account of a change in the law of the land.6 But, as has been
foreshadowed above, we are concerned in this matter with a contract of sale,
which necessitates an enquiry as to where the risk of loss or destruction lay at
the time that registration of the cession of the mineral rights became
impossible. Simply put, was the sale perfecta by 1 May 2004, ie when
registration of the cession of the mineral rights into the appellant's name
became impossible? If it was, the benefit and risk attaching to the mineral
rights sold passed to the appellant, as the purchaser, upon the sale becoming
perfecta,7 in which case the respondent, as seller, would be entitled to
payment of the purchase price.8

[9] A sale is perfecta if it is absolute, in the sense that it is not subject to a
suspensive condition.9 It becomes perfecta once there is agreement on the
merx (the thing sold) and the pretium (price) and any condition, resolutive or
suspensive, has been fulfilled.10 It is common cause that until such time as the
Master had given his consent the sale was incomplete. It was subject to the
Master's consent. Counsel for the respondent submitted that once the
necessary consent had been obtained and communicated to the appellant in

5 The date of the repeal of s 3(1)(m) of the Mining Titles Registration Amendment Act.
6 J W Wessels The Law of Contract in South Africa (2 ed) Vol II paras 2671 and 2672.
7 Fine & Gluckmann v Heynecke 1915 TPD 211; Grobbelaar v Van Heerden 1906 EDC 229;
W W Barrett v Ngazana (1901) 22 NLR 223; Garvin and others NNO v Sorec Properties
Gardens Ltd 1996 (1) SA 463 (C) at 467C and Mulder v Van Eyk 1984 (4) SA 204 (SE) at
207C.
8 See the cases in n 7 above.
9 A J Kerr The Law of Sale and Lease (3 ed) p 237; Voet 18.6.1.
10 Mnyandu v Mnyandu NO 1964 (1) SA 418 (N) at 422H; BC Plant Hire CC t/a BC Carriers v
Grenco (SA) (Pty) Ltd 2004 (4) SA 550 (C) para 41; Mulder v Van Eyk above n 7 at 207F.

writing on 22 April 2004, the suspensive condition was fulfilled and the sale
became perfecta. The risk accordingly passed to the appellant, so the
argument continued.

[10] Counsel for the appellant contended, on the other hand, that clause 3.2
of the agreement, which stipulates that the purchaser 'shall procure that its
attorneys do not lodge the cession of Mineral Rights until the Seller's
attorneys are in possession of the guarantee . . . ', expressly held the act of
registration in suspense until the guarantee was furnished. He submitted that
the furnishing of the guarantee was a condition suspensive of the
respondent's obligation to allow registration of the cession, such that transfer
or delivery of the merx, by registration of the cession of the mineral rights,
could not take place until that condition had been fulfilled. Counsel
consequently argued that until that suspensive condition was fulfilled or
waived, there was no agreement properly so called and the risk of
supervening impossibility of contractual performance remained with the
respondent.

[11] It is not uncommon to find, in an agreement of purchase and sale, a
heading or sub-heading that reads: "Conditions of Sale'. What follows such
headings are, usually, not true conditions which suspend the operation of the
agreement, but enforceable terms of the contract, or both. As was said in R v
Katz,11 the word 'condition' in relation to a contract, 'is sometimes used in a
wide sense as meaning a provision of the contract, ie an accepted stipulation',
such as includes 'ordinary arrangements as to time and manner of delivery
and of payment of the purchase price'. In the case of a true condition,
however, whether suspensive or resolutive, the operation of the whole
contract, or part thereof, and its consequences, depend upon an uncertain
future event.12 In other words, the operation of the obligations flowing from the
contract is suspended pending the happening, or failure, of the uncertain
future event. Fulfilment of a suspensive condition results in the contract being

11 1959 (3) SA 408 (C) at 417E.
12 Ibid at 417E-F; Design and Planning Service v Kruger 1974 (1) SA 689 (T) at 695C.

enforceable. And, normally, if the condition fails and the parties have not
agreed otherwise, the contract is rendered void.13

[12] The difference between a term of a contract (contractual obligation)
and a condition is best described by Holmes JA as follows:
'. . . a contractual obligation can be enforced, but no action will lie to compel the
performance of a condition.'14
The question, then, in the instant case, is whether the stipulation in the
agreement requiring the appellant to furnish a guarantee for payment of the
purchase price within 14 days of written notice having been given to him of the
Master's consent to the sale is a true condition, or a term of the contract.

[13] In my view, the appellant's obligation to furnish a guarantee for
payment of the purchase price depended on two conditions. The first was the
Master's consent to the sale taking place, which had to be obtained. The
fulfilment of that condition was dependent upon the will of a third person, the
Master, and not on any one of the parties. It was a casual condition.15 The
second, a potestative condition, was the conveyance of the fact of the
Master's consent having been obtained to the appellant in writing. The
fulfilment of this condition was entirely in the power of the respondent.16 It is
common cause that both these conditions were fulfilled.

[14] In terms of the agreement the appellant undertook to furnish the
guarantee for the purchase price of the mineral rights within 14 days from the
date of fulfilment of the second condition. Upon its fulfilment, the appellant
thus became bound to perform its side of the bargain – to furnish the
guarantee within the time stipulated in the agreement, ie within 14 days of the
fulfilment of the condition (within 14 days after 22 April 2004).17 The stipulation

13 See R H Christie The Law of Contract in South Africa (5 ed) p 145.
14 Scott v Poupard 1971 (2) SA 373 (A) at 378H; see also MacDuff & Co Ltd (in liquidation) v
Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co Ltd 1924 AD 573 at 590.
15 MacDuff above n 14 at 588; F du Bois et al Wille's Principles of South African Law (9 ed) at
793.
16 Ibid.
17 Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A) at 674E-675B.

is an enforceable contractual obligation; a term of the contract.18 The fact that
the agreement contains a condition that the deed of cession of the mineral
rights would not be lodged until the respondent's attorneys were in possession
of the guarantee does not affect the position. The condition merely serves to
ensure that the respondent is protected from parting with his rights, the
subject matter of the sale agreement, without an assurance that it would be
paid.

[15] Counsel for the appellant sought support for the proposition that clause
3.1 of the agreement – which stipulates when the guarantee was to be
furnished – is a condition rather than a term of the agreement, from the
judgment of Willis J in Ingledew v Theodosiou.19 The relevant passage in the
judgment reads:
'Mr Solomon criticised the Wilson agreement, inter alia, for the fact that it was a non-
existent "enterprise" which was purportedly sold, that the second defendant was
recorded therein as a VAT vendor when she was not, and that clause 4.1 thereof
contains the following:
"As security for the payment of such amount (the purchase price) the
purchaser shall within 30 days of the signature date, furnish the seller's
attorneys with a bank guarantee or guarantees as required by the seller,
payable to the seller or the seller's nominee/s upon registration of transfer at
such place or places as the seller stipulates."
This could be interpreted as a condition precedent or a suspensive condition that was
not fulfilled by the purchaser.'20
The court was dealing in that case with two agreements in terms of which the
owner of certain fixed property had sold the property to two individual
purchasers, and the question whether the rule qui prior est tempore potior est
jure was of application. Further down in the same paragraph the learned judge
accepts that the agreement at issue contained 'the requisite elements or
requirements of a sale' and that 'there are enforceable rights which [the
parties] may exercise, the one against the other . . . '.

18 Scott v Poupard above n 14.
19 2006 (5) SA 462 (W).
20 At para 52.

[16] It is difficult to discern, from the judgment, the basis upon which the
learned judge suggests that the clause 'could be interpreted as a . . .
suspensive condition'. I can find no reason why the seller in that case could
not have been able to enforce performance (the furnishing of a guarantee) by
the purchaser upon expiry of the period of 30 days. To the extent that the
dictum of the learned judge may suggest that the clause, without more, may
be said to contain a suspensive condition, I disagree.

[17] It was further argued, on behalf of the appellant, that the qualification in
clause 3.1 of the written agreement, in the present matter, conferring the
power on the respondent's attorney to approve the required guarantee/s,
suspended the operation of the agreement. This is because if the
respondent's attorney were to reject a guarantee furnished by the appellant,
there would be no agreement. I am unable to agree. If a seller or his or her
agent were to reject a guarantee, the basis of the rejection would have to be
reasonable. If not, his or her decision would be open to challenge. The
discretion given to a seller in an agreement of sale to accept or reject a
guarantee has to be exercised arbitrio boni viri.21 It follows that when the
appellant in the present matter was informed in writing on 22 April 2002 that
the Master had issued a certificate consenting to the sale of the mineral rights,
the agreement between the parties became unconditional. It became perfecta.

[18] In their heads of argument counsel for the appellant indicated that they
would seek to argue two issues in this court. The first was whether the sale of
the mineral rights was perfecta by 1 May 2004.22 If it was, the second issue
would be whether the coming into effect on 1 May 2004 of the Mineral and
Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 200223 and the Mining Titles
Registration Amendment Act,24 s 53 of which repealed s 3(1)(m) of the Deeds

21 Dharumpal Transport (Pty) Ltd v Dharumpal 1956 (1) SA 700 (A) at 707A-B; Blake v
Cassim and another NNO 2008 (5) SA 393 (SCA) at paras 20, 21 and 22.
22 The date from which cession of mineral rights could no longer be effected due to the repeal
of s 3(1)(m) of the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937.
23 The Act provides, inter alia, that a holder of mineral rights immediately before it took effect
has the exclusive right to apply for a prospecting right or a mining right (item 8 schedule 2
thereof).
24 Above n 5.

Registries Act, resulted in supervening impossibility of performance having the
effect of discharging the agreement of sale. Although counsel did not argue
the second issue, they did not expressly abandon it. Counsel, however,
conceded in argument, correctly so in my view, that if the sale was perfecta by
1 May 2004, then the risk of impossibility of delivery of the object of the sale,
by registration of the cession of the mineral rights, passed to the appellant, as
purchaser. The first issue now having been decided in the affirmative, the
second does not arise. The appeal must therefore fail.

[19] In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs, which shall include the
costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.

……………..
L MPATI P
JUDGE OF APPEAL

For Appellant:

C Puckrin SC

K Spottiswoode

Instructed by:

Werksman Inc

c/o Edelstein Bosman Inc

PRETORIA

Correspondents:

Matsepes

BLOEMFONTEIN

For Respondent:

A Gautschi SC

N Konstantinides

Instructed By:

Van Hulsteyns Attorneys

c/o Savage Jooste & Adams

PRETORIA

Correspondents:

Rossouws Attorneys

BLOEMFONTEIN