Dzima and Another v Company Unique Finance (Pty) Limited and Others (2019/38139) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1161 (12 November 2024)

Dzima and Another v Company Unique Finance (Pty) Limited and Others (2019/38139) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1161 (12 November 2024)

The court found that the applicants had knowledge of the essential facts regarding the sale and transfer of the property by at least 30 September 2016, when they were served with the eviction application and supporting documents. The relief sought by the applicants constitutes a 'debt' under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, and the three-year prescription period applies. The application was launched more than three years after the applicants acquired the necessary knowledge, and no valid grounds were established to delay the commencement of prescription under sections 12(2) or 12(3). The applicants' constitutional challenge to the Prescription Act was dismissed due to procedural...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1161
Parties
Applicant: Mona Solomon Dzimba; Applicant: Jane Dzimba; Respondent: Company Unique Finance (Pty) Limited; Respondent: CUF Property Management Services (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Booysen, Sydney Rean; Respondent: Hopkins, Theo; Respondent: Van Staden, Jacob Mostert Saayman; Respondent: Jacob Stephanus Opperman; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds : Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2024
Case Number
2019/38139
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion; Application for Declaratory and Constitutional Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of counsel on scale C.
Judges
UYS AJ
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Title Deed Cancellation, Declaratory Relief, Constitutional Invalidity Challenge, Res Judicata, Alienation of Land Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prescription Act Title Deed Cancellation Declaratory Relief Constitutional Invalidity Challenge Res Judicata Alienation of Land Act

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mona Solomon Dzimba

Applicant

Jane Dzimba

Applicant

Company Unique Finance (Pty) Limited

Respondent

CUF Property Management Services (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Booysen, Sydney Rean

Respondent

Hopkins, Theo

Respondent

Van Staden, Jacob Mostert Saayman

Respondent

Jacob Stephanus Opperman

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds : Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion; Application for Declaratory and Constitutional Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' claims for cancellation of title deed and declaratory relief have prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction order and prior proceedings render the applicants' claims res judicata.
  3. 3 Whether sections 10(1), 10(2), and 11(a)-(d) of the Prescription Act are constitutionally invalid as alleged by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had knowledge of the essential facts regarding the sale and transfer of the property by at least 30 September 2016, when they were served with the eviction application and supporting documents. The relief sought by the applicants constitutes a 'debt' under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, and the three-year prescription period applies. The application was launched more than three years after the applicants acquired the necessary knowledge, and no valid grounds were established to delay the commencement of prescription under sections 12(2) or 12(3). The applicants' constitutional challenge to the Prescription Act was dismissed due to procedural...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of counsel on scale C.

Orders

  • Applicants' application dated 28 October 2019 is dismissed with costs, including costs of counsel on scale C.
  • Applicants' application dated 27 February 2020 (filed with replying affidavit) is, save for paragraph 2 thereof, dismissed with costs, including costs of counsel on scale C.