Komape and Another v Liesel De Vos Eiendomme t/a Adia Secunda (A64/17) [2018] ZAMPMHC 1 (14 December 2018)

Komape and Another v Liesel De Vos Eiendomme t/a Adia Secunda (A64/17) [2018] ZAMPMHC 1 (14 December 2018)

The court held that the first agreement between the appellants and the respondent was subject to a suspensive condition, namely the approval of a loan by a financial institution by 15 August 2016. As this condition was not fulfilled, the agreement lapsed and no obligation to pay commission arose. The appointment of the liquidator did not, by itself, deprive the appellants of their rights in the property, but the issue of authority was not finally pronounced upon. The appellants demonstrated a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim for commission, and the summary judgment should not have been granted. The appeal was upheld and the appellants were granted leave to defend the action.

Citation
[2018] ZAMPMHC 1
Parties
Appellant: David Sehlatele Komape; Appellant: Vallery Paulley Tlou Komape; Respondent: Liesel De Vos Eiendomme t/a Adia Secunda
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Case Number
A64/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment in Magistrates Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; summary judgment set aside; appellants granted leave to defend.
Judges
Roelofse, Cambanis
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Estate Agent Commission, Suspensive Condition, Liquidation of Joint Estate
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Estate Agent Commission Suspensive Condition Liquidation of Joint Estate

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Sehlatele Komape

Appellant

Vallery Paulley Tlou Komape

Appellant

Liesel De Vos Eiendomme t/a Adia Secunda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment in Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had authority to sell the immovable property after appointment of the liquidator.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to commission under the first agreement given the suspensive condition was not fulfilled.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants had a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim for commission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the first agreement between the appellants and the respondent was subject to a suspensive condition, namely the approval of a loan by a financial institution by 15 August 2016. As this condition was not fulfilled, the agreement lapsed and no obligation to pay commission arose. The appointment of the liquidator did not, by itself, deprive the appellants of their rights in the property, but the issue of authority was not finally pronounced upon. The appellants demonstrated a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim for commission, and the summary judgment should not have been granted. The appeal was upheld and the appellants were granted leave to defend the action.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; summary judgment set aside; appellants granted leave to defend.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The appellants are granted leave to defend.