Govender and Another v Maitin and Another (11976/07) [2008] ZAKZHC 31; 2008 (6) SA 64 (D) (8 February 2008)

Govender and Another v Maitin and Another (11976/07) [2008] ZAKZHC 31; 2008 (6) SA 64 (D) (8 February 2008)

The court found that no binding agreement of sale was concluded between the parties. The first respondent's alteration to the payment period constituted a counter-offer, which was not accepted by the first applicant, and there was no communication of acceptance to the first respondent. The second applicant's signature did not constitute valid acceptance, as the counter-offer was made to the first applicant specifically. The court rejected the argument that section 15(2) and 15(9) of the Matrimonial Property Act allowed the second applicant to accept the counter-offer on behalf of both spouses, as the statutory provisions do not override the requirement that the contracting party must...

Citation
[2008] ZAKZHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Remone Govender; Applicant: Amanda Govender; Respondent: Derik Paseka Maitin; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Kwazulu-Natal
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2008
Case Number
11976/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs.
Judges
Ntshangase
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Counter Offer, Community of Property, Written Consent Requirement, Interdict, Contract Formation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Counter Offer Community of Property Written Consent Requirement Interdict Contract Formation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Remone Govender

Applicant

Amanda Govender

Applicant

Derik Paseka Maitin

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Kwazulu-Natal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding agreement of sale was concluded between the applicants and the first respondent for the immovable property.
  2. 2 Whether the counter-offer made by the first respondent was validly accepted by the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 were complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no binding agreement of sale was concluded between the parties. The first respondent's alteration to the payment period constituted a counter-offer, which was not accepted by the first applicant, and there was no communication of acceptance to the first respondent. The second applicant's signature did not constitute valid acceptance, as the counter-offer was made to the first applicant specifically. The court rejected the argument that section 15(2) and 15(9) of the Matrimonial Property Act allowed the second applicant to accept the counter-offer on behalf of both spouses, as the statutory provisions do not override the requirement that the contracting party must...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of the application.