Masehla v N.G and Another (2019/40372) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1165 (16 October 2023)

Masehla v N.G and Another (2019/40372) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1165 (16 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the three-year delay in seeking removal of the bar. The explanation that she was unable to secure legal representation was not substantiated, especially given her prior awareness of the proceedings and access to legal advice. The court also found that the alleged list of defects relied upon by the applicant was not incorporated into the contract, as it was not signed by the plaintiffs nor referenced in the contract itself. The defence based on prescription was rejected, as prescription only began to run when the plaintiffs became aware of the defects after taking occupation. Consequently, the applicant did...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1165
Parties
Applicant: Masehla, Tebogo Mathibeng; Respondent: G, N; Respondent: G, S-S
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 October 2023
Case Number
2019/40372
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Removal of Bar
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Removal of Bar, Condonation, Contract of Sale, Voetstoots Clause, Prescription Act, Latent Defects
Civil Procedure Land and Property Removal of Bar Condonation Contract of Sale Voetstoots Clause Prescription Act Latent Defects

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masehla, Tebogo Mathibeng

Applicant

G, N

Respondent

G, S-S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Removal of Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the removal of the bar under Rule 27(1).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the three-year delay in filing a plea.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence to the claim, including reliance on the voetstoots clause and prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the three-year delay in seeking removal of the bar. The explanation that she was unable to secure legal representation was not substantiated, especially given her prior awareness of the proceedings and access to legal advice. The court also found that the alleged list of defects relied upon by the applicant was not incorporated into the contract, as it was not signed by the plaintiffs nor referenced in the contract itself. The defence based on prescription was rejected, as prescription only began to run when the plaintiffs became aware of the defects after taking occupation. Consequently, the applicant did...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.