F.M and Others v G.M and Others (11955/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 393 (9 June 2021)

F.M and Others v G.M and Others (11955/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 393 (9 June 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide documentary proof that they are children of the deceased, as required to establish their entitlement to the property. The application was brought more than eight years after the applicants became aware of their claim and more than six years after the property was transferred, exceeding the prescription period set by the Prescription Act. The applicants did not apply for condonation or explain the delay. Documents submitted outside of affidavits were inadmissible, and the applicants did not discharge the onus of proof. The court held that neither the Master of the High Court nor the court itself could determine paternity without...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 393
Parties
Applicant: F M[...]; Applicant: D M[...]; Applicant: M M[...]; Respondent: G M[...]; Respondent: M M[...]; Respondent: Y M[...]; Respondent: The Master of the High Court; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2021
Case Number
11955/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Maumela
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Onus of Proof, Title Deed Cancellation, Affidavit Evidence
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prescription Act Onus of Proof Title Deed Cancellation Affidavit 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F M[...]

Applicant

D M[...]

Applicant

M M[...]

Applicant

G M[...]

Respondent

M M[...]

Respondent

Y M[...]

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have proven they are children of the deceased and entitled to inherit the property.
  2. 2 Whether the application for cancellation of the title deed is prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether documents not forming part of affidavits are admissible in application proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide documentary proof that they are children of the deceased, as required to establish their entitlement to the property. The application was brought more than eight years after the applicants became aware of their claim and more than six years after the property was transferred, exceeding the prescription period set by the Prescription Act. The applicants did not apply for condonation or explain the delay. Documents submitted outside of affidavits were inadmissible, and the applicants did not discharge the onus of proof. The court held that neither the Master of the High Court nor the court itself could determine paternity without...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.