Manana and Another v Manana and Others (37456/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 64 (26 January 2024)

Manana and Another v Manana and Others (37456/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 64 (26 January 2024)

The court found that the applicants lacked legal standing to challenge the transfer of the property, as ownership had lawfully moved from the late Ms Zulu to the first and second respondents. Furthermore, the court held that the matter was res judicata, as similar proceedings involving the same parties and cause of action had previously been dismissed by a competent court. The applicants were therefore not entitled to the relief sought, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Lindiwe Maria Manana; Applicant: Euphenia Zulu; Respondent: Vusi Johannes Manana; Respondent: Rachel Phumla Manana; Respondent: The Master of the High Court: Johannesburg; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds: Johannesburg; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited; Respondent: Tsietsi Matjiu Modikwe
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2024
Case Number
37456/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Malindi
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Res Judicata, Sale in Execution, Title Deed Cancellation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Locus Standi Res Judicata Sale in Execution Title Deed Cancellation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindiwe Maria Manana

Applicant

Euphenia Zulu

Applicant

Vusi Johannes Manana

Respondent

Rachel Phumla Manana

Respondent

The Master of the High Court: Johannesburg

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds: Johannesburg

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Tsietsi Matjiu Modikwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do the applicants have legal standing to challenge the transfer of the property to the sixth respondent.
  2. 2 Is the matter res judicata due to previous litigation involving the same parties and cause of action.
  3. 3 Was the sale in execution and subsequent transfer of the property to the sixth respondent lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants lacked legal standing to challenge the transfer of the property, as ownership had lawfully moved from the late Ms Zulu to the first and second respondents. Furthermore, the court held that the matter was res judicata, as similar proceedings involving the same parties and cause of action had previously been dismissed by a competent court. The applicants were therefore not entitled to the relief sought, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay their costs jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved.