Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd v Phalanndwa and Others (47615/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 956 (2 November 2016)

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd v Phalanndwa and Others (47615/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 956 (2 November 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for the relief claimed in its founding affidavit. The applicant's own documents, specifically the consent document attached to the deed of transfer, supported the first respondent's version that an unlimited extension of the building period was granted. The applicant's attempt to rely on the extension agreement was inconsistent with the documentary evidence and its own conduct. The court held that the applicant could not change its case during argument and that the respondent was entitled to rely on the consent document. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 956
Parties
Applicant: Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mulambil Phalanndwa; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: Nqaba Guarantees SPV
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2016
Case Number
47615/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Title Deed Conditions, Specific Performance, Building Period Extension, Retransfer of Property
Land and Property Civil Procedure Title Deed Conditions Specific Performance Building Period Extension Retransfer of Property

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mulambil Phalanndwa

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Nqaba Guarantees SPV

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order compelling the first respondent to re-transfer the property to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the building period extension was valid and binding on the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant made out a case for relief in its founding affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for the relief claimed in its founding affidavit. The applicant's own documents, specifically the consent document attached to the deed of transfer, supported the first respondent's version that an unlimited extension of the building period was granted. The applicant's attempt to rely on the extension agreement was inconsistent with the documentary evidence and its own conduct. The court held that the applicant could not change its case during argument and that the respondent was entitled to rely on the consent document. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.