Maifadi v Dos Anjos Pedro (2020/27885) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1102 (31 October 2024)

Maifadi v Dos Anjos Pedro (2020/27885) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1102 (31 October 2024)

None of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant have a reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to establish that the seller had knowledge of the encroachment or that any misrepresentation occurred. The property sold was as described in the title deed, and the contract did not oblige the seller to point out boundaries or remove encroachments. The answering affidavit was treated as a notice of legal points, not as evidence of fact. The hearsay evidence from Mr Kwak was inadmissible, and no basis was provided for its admission. Section 2 of the Alienation of Land Act was relevant to the dispute, as any alteration to the property would require a written agreement, which was...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1102
Parties
Applicant: Antony Maifadi; Respondent: Adilia Dos Anjos Pedro N.O.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
2020/27885
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Original Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
G B Hardy
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Contractual Misrepresentation, Encroachment, Admissibility of Hearsay, Leave to Appeal, Costs Follow Result
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Contractual Misrepresentation Encroachment Admissibility of Hearsay Leave to Appeal Costs Follow Result

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antony Maifadi

Applicant

Adilia Dos Anjos Pedro N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Original Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a case entitling him to the orders sought.
  2. 2 Whether the answering affidavit was properly accepted despite the deponent's lack of factual knowledge.
  3. 3 Whether the property sold matched the title deed description despite alleged encroachment.

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant have a reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to establish that the seller had knowledge of the encroachment or that any misrepresentation occurred. The property sold was as described in the title deed, and the contract did not oblige the seller to point out boundaries or remove encroachments. The answering affidavit was treated as a notice of legal points, not as evidence of fact. The hearsay evidence from Mr Kwak was inadmissible, and no basis was provided for its admission. Section 2 of the Alienation of Land Act was relevant to the dispute, as any alteration to the property would require a written agreement, which was...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for leave to appeal the judgment handed down on 26 May 2022 is refused.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal are to be paid by the applicant.