MEDIA STATEMENT – CASE HEARING IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
 
Ikea Trading und Design AG v BOE Bank Ltd

Supreme Court of Appeal -77/2003 Hearing date: 18 March 2004
  Judgment date: 1 April 2004
Meaning of s 1(1) of the Security by Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993: description of property in a notarial bond must be such that it is readily recognisable from the description alone: resort to evidence that supplements the description is impermissible

Media Summary of Judgment

From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

The Supreme Court of Appeal today held that in order for a special notarial bond over movable property to comply with the requirements of the Security by Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993, the bond must describe the property so secured in such a way that it is readily recognisable from the description in the bond itself. It is not sufficient to refer to an item of a particular make or kind: the unique item must be so identified that no evidence is required to add to the description in the bond registered in the deeds office.

The court thus found that a company, Ikea Trading und Design AG, did not have a secured claim in an insolvent estate where the assets in respect of which it claimed security were not described or identified in the bond in such a way as to make them readily recognisable by the creditor or any third person.