Ndlovu and Another v Nwaeze and Others (3010/2015) [2024] ZAGPJHC 761 (21 August 2024)

Ndlovu and Another v Nwaeze and Others (3010/2015) [2024] ZAGPJHC 761 (21 August 2024)

The court found that the contract between the applicants and the third respondent was cancelled as far back as June 2008, and this cancellation was communicated and later affirmed in the 2009 judgment of Makgoka J, although not formally ordered. The applicants failed to comply with their obligations under the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 761
Parties
Applicant: Ndlovu Sputnik Richard; Applicant: Ndlovu Julia Tollas; Respondent: Nwaeze Noble Ikechukwu; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: Peter Karl Maerlender; Respondent: Sheriff for the District of Johannesburg East; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds Pretoria
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2024
Case Number
3010/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Nharmuravate
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Sale in Execution, Contract Cancellation, Declaratory Relief, Right of Occupation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Sale in Execution Contract Cancellation Declaratory Relief Right of Occupation

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndlovu Sputnik Richard

Applicant

Ndlovu Julia Tollas

Applicant

Nwaeze Noble Ikechukwu

Respondent

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Peter Karl Maerlender

Respondent

Sheriff for the District of Johannesburg East

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale in execution of the property should be declared null and void.
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff was authorised to transfer the property to the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to have the property transferred into their names upon payment of the outstanding amount.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contract between the applicants and the third respondent was cancelled as far back as June 2008, and this cancellation was communicated and later affirmed in the 2009 judgment of Makgoka J, although not formally ordered. The applicants failed to comply with their obligations under the contract and with subsequent court directives, including making payment arrangements by the cutoff date of 31 March 2010. The sale in execution and transfer of the property to the first respondent were conducted pursuant to valid court orders, and the sheriff acted lawfully. The Alienation of Land Act does not apply under these circumstances, as the contract was cancelled prior to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.