Dreyer v Norval and Others (15307/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 97 (3 November 2006)

Dreyer v Norval and Others (15307/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 97 (3 November 2006)

The court found that the respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of their opposing affidavit, and the evidence presented was inadmissible hearsay. The suspensive conditions in the agreement of sale were not fulfilled by the first respondent, specifically the failure to obtain the required loan amount within the stipulated period. As a result, the agreement was discharged and the applicant was entitled to the relief sought, including eviction and costs. The respondents' application for condonation was refused due to lack of prospects of success on the merits.

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 97
Parties
Applicant: Wilna Dreyer; Respondent: Linda Yvette Norval; Respondent: Ho-Tun Incorporated; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2006
Case Number
15307/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief and Costs
Outcome
Application granted. Agreement of sale discharged due to non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions. Condonation refused. Costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
E M Patel
Legal Topics
Suspensive Condition, Agreement of Sale, Condonation, Eviction, Hearsay Evidence
Land and Property Civil Procedure Suspensive Condition Agreement of Sale Condonation Eviction Hearsay Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilna Dreyer

Applicant

Linda Yvette Norval

Respondent

Ho-Tun Incorporated

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement of sale between the applicant and first respondent was discharged due to non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the respondents' opposing affidavit should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to eviction and costs against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of their opposing affidavit, and the evidence presented was inadmissible hearsay. The suspensive conditions in the agreement of sale were not fulfilled by the first respondent, specifically the failure to obtain the required loan amount within the stipulated period. As a result, the agreement was discharged and the applicant was entitled to the relief sought, including eviction and costs. The respondents' application for condonation was refused due to lack of prospects of success on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Agreement of sale discharged due to non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions. Condonation refused. Costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 39.3, 39.4 and 39.10 of the respondents' opposing affidavit are struck off.
  • Condonation for the late filing of the opposing affidavit is refused.