Breedt v Breedt and Others (61930/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 29 (25 January 2016)

Breedt v Breedt and Others (61930/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 29 (25 January 2016)

The court found that the process followed by the first respondent in selling the property was substantially in accordance with the court order of 10 September 2013. The order authorised the sheriff to sell the property by public auction if the parties failed to sell it in the open market within three months. The evidence showed that the property could not be sold at the agreed market value despite repeated attempts. The applicant's interpretation that the property could only be sold at the reserve price was rejected as impractical and unfair, as it would result in endless auctions with no sale, prejudicing the first respondent. The sale in execution, although not strictly correct in terms...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 29
Parties
Applicant: Martin Breedt; Respondent: Melani Breedt; Respondent: Sheriff Centurion West; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: All For Appliance Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 January 2016
Case Number
61930/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
E.M. Kubushi
Legal Topics
Sale in Execution, Interpretation of Court Orders, Auction Procedure, Transfer of Property
Civil Procedure Land and Property Sale in Execution Interpretation of Court Orders Auction Procedure Transfer 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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Breedt

Applicant

Melani Breedt

Respondent

Sheriff Centurion West

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

All For Appliance Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale in execution of the property was null and void due to alleged non-compliance with the court order of 10 September 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the first and second respondents were entitled to sell the property for less than the market value stipulated in the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the process employed by the first respondent in selling the property was defective.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the process followed by the first respondent in selling the property was substantially in accordance with the court order of 10 September 2013. The order authorised the sheriff to sell the property by public auction if the parties failed to sell it in the open market within three months. The evidence showed that the property could not be sold at the agreed market value despite repeated attempts. The applicant's interpretation that the property could only be sold at the reserve price was rejected as impractical and unfair, as it would result in endless auctions with no sale, prejudicing the first respondent. The sale in execution, although not strictly correct in terms...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to declare the sale in execution and subsequent agreement of sale null and void is dismissed.
  • The transfer of the property to the fourth respondent may proceed.