Majiedt N.O. and Others v Valodia (A37/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 54 (26 February 2015)

Majiedt N.O. and Others v Valodia (A37/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 54 (26 February 2015)

The court held that the deed of sale between the trustees and Valodia was valid and binding, and had not been validly cancelled in accordance with the contract's non-variation clause. The trustees failed to place Valodia in mora or to cancel the agreement in writing as required. The deposit was paid on Valodia's behalf, and his version that he borrowed the money from the Haripersad Trust was accepted. The trustees' subsequent actions in concluding a second deed of sale with the Haripersad Trust constituted a repudiation of the first agreement, which was accepted by Valodia, entitling him to restitution of the deposit. The court rejected the trustees' argument for relaxing the Shifren...

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 54
Parties
Appellant: Donovan Theodor Majiedt N.O. & Two Others; Respondent: Hassan Mahomed Valodia
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2015
Case Number
A37/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of De Wet Aj; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
J P Daffue, A F Jordaan, S Naidoo
Legal Topics
Sale of Immovable Property, Non Variation Clause, Shifren Principle, Repudiation, Restitution, Agency Law
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Sale of Immovable Property Non Variation Clause Shifren Principle Repudiation Restitution Agency Law

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

Parties

Donovan Theodor Majiedt N.O. & Two Others

Appellant

Hassan Mahomed Valodia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of De Wet Aj; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of sale between the trustees and Valodia was valid and binding and not cancelled by the trustees.
  2. 2 Whether Valodia was entitled to restitution of the deposit paid under the deed of sale.
  3. 3 Whether the Shifren principle should be applied or relaxed in this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the deed of sale between the trustees and Valodia was valid and binding, and had not been validly cancelled in accordance with the contract's non-variation clause. The trustees failed to place Valodia in mora or to cancel the agreement in writing as required. The deposit was paid on Valodia's behalf, and his version that he borrowed the money from the Haripersad Trust was accepted. The trustees' subsequent actions in concluding a second deed of sale with the Haripersad Trust constituted a repudiation of the first agreement, which was accepted by Valodia, entitling him to restitution of the deposit. The court rejected the trustees' argument for relaxing the Shifren...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.