Pieterse v Pieterse and Others (93393/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 815 (2 December 2015)

Pieterse v Pieterse and Others (93393/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 815 (2 December 2015)

The court found that the first respondent breached the settlement agreement by entering into a sale agreement for the property at R1 250 000.00 without the applicant's written consent, as required by the agreement. The respondent's reliance on an emotional statement by the applicant did not constitute valid written consent. The court held that the agreement was clear in its requirement for both parties' written approval of the selling price, and the respondent's unilateral conduct was in violation of this. The urgency of the matter was established due to the imminent risk of transfer at a price prejudicial to the applicant. The court declared the sale agreement null and void, interdicted...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 815
Parties
Applicant: Arnold Francois Pieterse; Respondent: Belinda Jacoba Pieterse; Respondent: Zelda Karelsen N.O; Respondent: The Deeds Office; Respondent: First National Bank; Respondent: James Henry Le Roux; Respondent: Maria Elizabeth Le Roux
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2015
Case Number
93393/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application granted. Interdict and declaratory relief issued in favour of the applicant. Costs awarded against the first respondent on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Divorce Settlement Enforcement, Sale of Immovable Property, Specific Performance, Urgent Interdict, Breach of Contract
Family and Children Land and Property Civil Procedure Divorce Settlement Enforcement Sale of Immovable Property Specific Performance Urgent Interdict Breach of Contract

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

Parties

Arnold Francois Pieterse

Applicant

Belinda Jacoba Pieterse

Respondent

Zelda Karelsen N.O

Respondent

The Deeds Office

Respondent

First National Bank

Respondent

James Henry Le Roux

Respondent

Maria Elizabeth Le Roux

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent breached the terms of the settlement agreement regarding the sale of the immovable property.
  2. 2 Whether the sale agreement entered into with the fifth and sixth respondents is valid in the absence of the applicant's written consent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent interdict prohibiting the sale and transfer of the property at the reduced price.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent breached the settlement agreement by entering into a sale agreement for the property at R1 250 000.00 without the applicant's written consent, as required by the agreement. The respondent's reliance on an emotional statement by the applicant did not constitute valid written consent. The court held that the agreement was clear in its requirement for both parties' written approval of the selling price, and the respondent's unilateral conduct was in violation of this. The urgency of the matter was established due to the imminent risk of transfer at a price prejudicial to the applicant. The court declared the sale agreement null and void, interdicted...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Interdict and declaratory relief issued in favour of the applicant. Costs awarded against the first respondent on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The first respondent is prohibited from continuing with the sale of the immovable property known as […], Garsfontein, Pretoria, Gauteng for the amount of R1 250 000.00 as agreed in writing between the first respondent, fifth respondent and sixth respondent.
  • The third respondent is prohibited from transferring the immovable property known as […], Garsfontein, Pretoria, Gauteng without the written consent of the applicant.