G.M.M v V.A.M N.O and Others (15119/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 823 (31 October 2022)

G.M.M v V.A.M N.O and Others (15119/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 823 (31 October 2022)

The court found that the parents were never granted ownership of the property, only a residential permit. The respondents lawfully acquired and registered the property in 1999, and there was no evidence that the applicant was aware of the transfer at that time. The claim of prescription could not succeed as there was insufficient evidence that the applicant's right had prescribed. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the replying affidavit, and thus the court disregarded it. The dispute of fact could be resolved on the papers, and the applicant's version was a bare denial, not supported by evidence. The respondents proved lawful ownership, and...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 823
Parties
Applicant: G.M.M; Respondent: V.A.M N.O.; Respondent: E.M.2 M.; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Case Number
15119/21
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kooverjie
Legal Topics
Deeds Registry Act, Prescription Act, Intestate Succession, Condonation, Dispute of Fact
Land and Property Civil Procedure Deeds Registry Act Prescription Act Intestate Succession Condonation Dispute of Fact

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.M.M

Applicant

V.A.M N.O.

Respondent

E.M.2 M.

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registration and transfer of the property to the respondents was unlawful and invalid.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim to the property has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parents were never granted ownership of the property, only a residential permit. The respondents lawfully acquired and registered the property in 1999, and there was no evidence that the applicant was aware of the transfer at that time. The claim of prescription could not succeed as there was insufficient evidence that the applicant's right had prescribed. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the replying affidavit, and thus the court disregarded it. The dispute of fact could be resolved on the papers, and the applicant's version was a bare denial, not supported by evidence. The respondents proved lawful ownership, and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.