Molati v Sheriff Soshanguve & Moretele and Others (79139/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 788 (14 November 2017)

Molati v Sheriff Soshanguve & Moretele and Others (79139/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 788 (14 November 2017)

The sheriff's decision to re-auction the property was irrational, biased, and based on irrelevant considerations, specifically the applicant's appearance, despite her compliance with the payment requirements. The sheriff failed to consider relevant evidence of payment and acted in bad faith. The second respondent was aware of the pending urgent application and interim interdict but proceeded to sell the property to a third party, thereby frustrating the applicant's relief. The court set aside the sheriff's decision and declared the applicant the successful bidder and purchaser. Costs were awarded jointly and severally against the first and second respondents due to their conduct.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 788
Parties
Applicant: Phetogo Gladness Lemogang Molati; Respondent: Sheriff Soshanguve & Moretele; Respondent: RS Molobi; Respondent: Standard Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Case Number
79139/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Determination After Urgent Application and Rule Nisi
Outcome
Application granted; sheriff's decision and sale to second respondent set aside; applicant declared successful bidder; costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
N Ranchod
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Sale in Execution, Bias and Irregularity, Interdict, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review of Administrative Action Sale in Execution Bias and Irregularity Interdict Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phetogo Gladness Lemogang Molati

Applicant

Sheriff Soshanguve & Moretele

Respondent

RS Molobi

Respondent

Standard Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Determination After Urgent Application and Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff's decision to re-auction the property was irrational, biased, or taken in bad faith.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to be declared the successful bidder and purchaser of the property.
  3. 3 Whether the sale to the second respondent should be set aside as invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff's decision to re-auction the property was irrational, biased, and based on irrelevant considerations, specifically the applicant's appearance, despite her compliance with the payment requirements. The sheriff failed to consider relevant evidence of payment and acted in bad faith. The second respondent was aware of the pending urgent application and interim interdict but proceeded to sell the property to a third party, thereby frustrating the applicant's relief. The court set aside the sheriff's decision and declared the applicant the successful bidder and purchaser. Costs were awarded jointly and severally against the first and second respondents due to their conduct.

Court Disposition

Application granted; sheriff's decision and sale to second respondent set aside; applicant declared successful bidder; costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The decision of the first respondent to cancel the sale by auction to the applicant and the subsequent sale by re-auction to the second respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • The re-auction and sale of the property by the first respondent to the second respondent is declared invalid.