Nkwana v Lekgoathi and Another (34680/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 193 (17 May 2017)

Nkwana v Lekgoathi and Another (34680/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 193 (17 May 2017)

The court found that the applicant was not the nominated executor in the deceased's will and that her appointment as executrix had been cancelled by the Master of the High Court. On her own version, she lacked locus standi to prosecute the application. The transfer of the property was effected by a representative of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 193
Parties
Applicant: Mary Nkwana; Respondent: Mpho Lekgoathi; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Case Number
34680/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
G B Rome
Legal Topics
Transfer of Immovable Property, Locus Standi, Executor Authority, Abstract Theory of Transfer
Land and Property Civil Procedure Transfer of Immovable Property Locus Standi Executor Authority Abstract Theory of Transfer

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Nkwana

Applicant

Mpho Lekgoathi

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of Erf 422 Mamelodi East to the first respondent should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the application after the cancellation of her letters of authority.
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of the property was properly effected by the executor of the deceased's estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not the nominated executor in the deceased's will and that her appointment as executrix had been cancelled by the Master of the High Court. On her own version, she lacked locus standi to prosecute the application. The transfer of the property was effected by a representative of the estate, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that she was authorised to challenge the transfer. The application for a stay was also without foundation due to lack of service and non-appearance. Consequently, the application to set aside the transfer was dismissed, as the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for a stay of the hearing of the application is dismissed.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.