Lepadi N.O v Steinmuller (2018/19617) [2022] ZAGPPHC 354 (23 May 2022)

Lepadi N.O v Steinmuller (2018/19617) [2022] ZAGPPHC 354 (23 May 2022)

The Court found that the Respondent breached the sale agreement by failing to provide the required bank guarantees within the stipulated period. Although the Respondent later consented to the cancellation of the sale agreement, he opposed the application from the outset and contributed to delays. The Applicant was not entitled to retain the deposit, as no report or evidence of loss was presented to justify such retention. The Applicant, as the successful party, was entitled to the costs of the application. The Respondent was granted leave to supplement his pleadings in the interest of justice, but the core relief sought by the Applicant was granted, save for the retention of the deposit.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 354
Parties
Applicant: Mmathoto Leah Lepadi N.O.; Respondent: Arno Steinmuller; Plaintiff: Firstrand Bank Limited; Defendant: Kriel, Morne
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2022
Case Number
2018/19617
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Application for Cancellation of Sale in Execution and Retention of Deposit
Outcome
Application granted in part: sale in execution set aside; Applicant authorised to resell the property; Respondent ordered to pay costs; Applicant not entitled to retain deposit.
Judges
M R Phooko
Legal Topics
Sale in Execution, Retention of Deposit, Costs Order, National Credit Act, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Land and Property Sale in Execution Retention of Deposit Costs Order National Credit Act Breach of Contract

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mmathoto Leah Lepadi N.O.

Applicant

Arno Steinmuller

Respondent

Firstrand Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Kriel, Morne

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Application for Cancellation of Sale in Execution and Retention of Deposit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's application to supplement his pleadings should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to retain the deposit paid by the Respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to recover the costs of this application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Respondent breached the sale agreement by failing to provide the required bank guarantees within the stipulated period. Although the Respondent later consented to the cancellation of the sale agreement, he opposed the application from the outset and contributed to delays. The Applicant was not entitled to retain the deposit, as no report or evidence of loss was presented to justify such retention. The Applicant, as the successful party, was entitled to the costs of the application. The Respondent was granted leave to supplement his pleadings in the interest of justice, but the core relief sought by the Applicant was granted, save for the retention of the deposit.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: sale in execution set aside; Applicant authorised to resell the property; Respondent ordered to pay costs; Applicant not entitled to retain deposit.

Orders

  • The sale in execution held on 25 July 2019 in respect of the immovable property is set aside.
  • The Applicant is authorised to again sell in execution the immovable property for the reserve price of R376,000.00.