Marule and Others v Marule and Others (15082/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 928 (17 July 2023)

Marule and Others v Marule and Others (15082/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 928 (17 July 2023)

The court held that the applicants' reliance on section 2 of the Conversion Act was misplaced, as residential permits under Regulation 7 do not qualify as 'affected sites' and are not subject to section 2 inquiries. Instead, the Conversion Act specifically provides in section 6 for the automatic conversion of such permits into statutory leases, which may subsequently be upgraded to ownership under other legislation. The authorities cited by the applicants were distinguishable, as they involved site permits or occupation certificates, which are expressly included as 'affected sites.' The court found no legal basis to cancel the 2003 Deed on the grounds advanced by the applicants and...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 928
Parties
Applicant: Marule, Leranyane Christina; Applicant: Marule, Masemeta John; Applicant: Mnisi, Mpho Elizabeth (nee Marule); Applicant: Mogabudi, Ntale Maria (nee Marule); Applicant: Marule, Selebane Sylvia N.O. (in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the late Metlele Karel Marule); Respondent: Marule, Ernest; Respondent: Marule, Elizabeth Thelma; Respondent: Director-General, Department of Human Settlements, Gauteng Province; Respondent: MEC, Department of Human Settlements, Gauteng Province; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2023
Case Number
15082/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants in favour of the first and second respondents.
Judges
RJ Moultrie
Legal Topics
Conversion of Rights, Title Deed Cancellation, Leasehold to Ownership, Section 2 Inquiry, Upgrading of Land Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Conversion of Rights Title Deed Cancellation Leasehold to Ownership Section 2 Inquiry Upgrading of Land Rights

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marule, Leranyane Christina

Applicant

Marule, Masemeta John

Applicant

Mnisi, Mpho Elizabeth (nee Marule)

Applicant

Mogabudi, Ntale Maria (nee Marule)

Applicant

Marule, Selebane Sylvia N.O. (in her capacity as executrix of the estate of the late Metlele Karel Marule)

Applicant

Marule, Ernest

Respondent

Marule, Elizabeth Thelma

Respondent

Director-General, Department of Human Settlements, Gauteng Province

Respondent

MEC, Department of Human Settlements, Gauteng Province

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conversion of a residential permit into ownership required a section 2 inquiry under the Conversion of Certain Rights into Leasehold or Ownership Act.
  2. 2 Whether the 2003 Deed conferring ownership on the first and second respondents is invalid due to the absence of a section 2 inquiry.
  3. 3 Whether any other statutory basis exists for the registration and upgrading of the respondents' rights to ownership.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants' reliance on section 2 of the Conversion Act was misplaced, as residential permits under Regulation 7 do not qualify as 'affected sites' and are not subject to section 2 inquiries. Instead, the Conversion Act specifically provides in section 6 for the automatic conversion of such permits into statutory leases, which may subsequently be upgraded to ownership under other legislation. The authorities cited by the applicants were distinguishable, as they involved site permits or occupation certificates, which are expressly included as 'affected sites.' The court found no legal basis to cancel the 2003 Deed on the grounds advanced by the applicants and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants in favour of the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.