Mbatha and Another v S & J Rademeyer (Pty) Ltd (79554/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 293 (31 March 2015)

Mbatha and Another v S & J Rademeyer (Pty) Ltd (79554/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 293 (31 March 2015)

The court found that the plaintiffs had complied with their obligations under the sale agreements by paying the full purchase price. Clause 4.1 of the agreements did not require the plaintiffs to pay or tender transfer costs before the seller appointed conveyancing attorneys and made a demand for such costs. The defendant failed to appoint conveyancing attorneys and did not demand payment of transfer costs, thereby breaching the agreements by failing to effect transfer. The plaintiffs were entitled to cancel the agreements and claim a refund. The defendant's interpretation of clause 4.1 was not tenable and did not constitute a triable issue. The defendant failed to disclose a bona fide...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 293
Parties
Plaintiff: Cedric Siyabonga Nsizwenhle Mbatha; Plaintiff: Khanyisile Tamara Mbatha; Defendant: S & J Rademeyer (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2015
Case Number
79554/14
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Reasons for Summary Judgment Order
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
Judges
Makhubele
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Reciprocal Obligations, Sale of Immovable Property, Cancellation of Agreement
Civil Procedure Land and Property Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Reciprocal Obligations Sale of Immovable Property Cancellation of Agreement

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cedric Siyabonga Nsizwenhle Mbatha

Plaintiff

Khanyisile Tamara Mbatha

Plaintiff

S & J Rademeyer (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Reasons for Summary Judgment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to cancel the sale agreements and claim a refund of the purchase price due to the defendant's breach.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's interpretation of clause 4.1 of the agreements creates reciprocal obligations requiring the plaintiffs to pay or tender transfer costs before transfer.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has disclosed a bona fide defence that is good in law to resist summary judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had complied with their obligations under the sale agreements by paying the full purchase price. Clause 4.1 of the agreements did not require the plaintiffs to pay or tender transfer costs before the seller appointed conveyancing attorneys and made a demand for such costs. The defendant failed to appoint conveyancing attorneys and did not demand payment of transfer costs, thereby breaching the agreements by failing to effect transfer. The plaintiffs were entitled to cancel the agreements and claim a refund. The defendant's interpretation of clause 4.1 was not tenable and did not constitute a triable issue. The defendant failed to disclose a bona fide...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Confirmation of cancellation of the Sale Agreements.
  • Payment of the sum of R690,000.00 plus interest at 9% per annum calculated from 8 September 2014 to date of payment.