Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Puling and Others (58/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1127 (27 October 2015)

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited v Puling and Others (58/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1127 (27 October 2015)

The court held that the applicant's claim for re-transfer of the property is a debt as contemplated in the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 and is subject to the three-year prescription period under section 11(d). The right to claim re-transfer, even if recorded in the title deed, does not constitute a real right immune from prescription. The applicant's cause of action arose when the respondents failed to build within the stipulated period, and prescription ran from that date. The applicant's arguments regarding personal servitude and interruption of prescription were rejected. The court found that the claim had prescribed and upheld the respondents' special plea of prescription. It was...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1127
Parties
Applicant: Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Puling Puling; Respondent: Tapiwanashe Puling; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2015
Case Number
58/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
The respondents' special plea of prescription is upheld. The applicant's claim is dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
Makhubele
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Specific Performance, Title Conditions, Real Rights, Personal Servitude
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prescription Act Specific Performance Title Conditions Real Rights Personal Servitude

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Puling Puling

Respondent

Tapiwanashe Puling

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim for re-transfer of the property constitutes a debt under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim has prescribed in terms of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the title deed condition creates a real right or a personal servitude not subject to prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's claim for re-transfer of the property is a debt as contemplated in the Prescription Act 68 of 1969 and is subject to the three-year prescription period under section 11(d). The right to claim re-transfer, even if recorded in the title deed, does not constitute a real right immune from prescription. The applicant's cause of action arose when the respondents failed to build within the stipulated period, and prescription ran from that date. The applicant's arguments regarding personal servitude and interruption of prescription were rejected. The court found that the claim had prescribed and upheld the respondents' special plea of prescription. It was...

Court Disposition

The respondents' special plea of prescription is upheld. The applicant's claim is dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The respondents' plea of prescription is upheld with costs, including costs of Senior Counsel.