Manaka and Another v Molefe (2019/18220) [2020] ZAGPJHC 305 (16 September 2020)

Manaka and Another v Molefe (2019/18220) [2020] ZAGPJHC 305 (16 September 2020)

The court found that the applicants had not proposed any alternative method for terminating joint ownership of the property and merely sought dismissal of the respondent's claim. The law governing leave to appeal requires a reasonable prospect of success or a compelling reason. Given the grounds of appeal and the possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the termination of joint ownership and the manner of disposition, leave to appeal was granted. The cost order was not challenged, as it followed the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 305
Parties
Applicant: Manaka Seitshiro Kgosimotho; Applicant: Manaka Seitshiro Kgosimotho N.O; Respondent: Molefe Irene Mokgadi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2020
Case Number
2019/18220
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Handed Down on 8 November 2019.
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the Gauteng Local Division.
Judges
N Adam
Legal Topics
Actio Communi Dividundo, Joint Ownership Termination, Leave to Appeal, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Actio Communi Dividundo Joint Ownership Termination Leave to Appeal Costs Award

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manaka Seitshiro Kgosimotho

Applicant

Manaka Seitshiro Kgosimotho N.O

Applicant

Molefe Irene Mokgadi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Handed Down on 8 November 2019.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred in finding that the second applicant could not afford to purchase the respondent's share of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo erred in finding that the applicants refused to agree to the termination of joint ownership.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo's order regarding the disposition of the property was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had not proposed any alternative method for terminating joint ownership of the property and merely sought dismissal of the respondent's claim. The law governing leave to appeal requires a reasonable prospect of success or a compelling reason. Given the grounds of appeal and the possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the termination of joint ownership and the manner of disposition, leave to appeal was granted. The cost order was not challenged, as it followed the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the Gauteng Local Division.

Orders

  • The first and second applicants are granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench of the Gauteng Local Division.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal are reserved for decision by the Court hearing the appeal.