Pillay and Another v Bisnath and Others (6793/2010) [2011] ZAKZDHC 83 (14 December 2011)

Pillay and Another v Bisnath and Others (6793/2010) [2011] ZAKZDHC 83 (14 December 2011)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant gave undertakings or assurances which interrupted prescription and caused it to run afresh. The evidence showed that the defendant regarded the agreement as cancelled from 20 March 2003, and there was no credible evidence of ongoing assurances regarding transfer. The plaintiffs made no payments towards transfer costs, did not sign bond or transfer documents, and the bank closed its file. Correspondence confirmed the defendant's position that the agreement was cancelled. As a result, the claim for transfer was extinguished by prescription, and it was unnecessary to consider the other...

Citation
[2011] ZAKZDHC 83
Parties
Plaintiff: Vasudevan Arnajala Pillay; Plaintiff: Varsha Pillay; Defendant: D Bisnath; Defendant: G Bisnath; Defendant: Registrar of Deeds
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2011
Case Number
6793/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Prescription, Alienation of Land Act, Matrimonial Property Act, Transfer of Immovable Property, Interdict, Occupational Rental
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prescription Alienation of Land Act Matrimonial Property Act Transfer of Immovable Property Interdict Occupational Rental

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vasudevan Arnajala Pillay

Plaintiff

Varsha Pillay

Plaintiff

D Bisnath

Defendant

G Bisnath

Defendant

Registrar of Deeds

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claim for transfer of immovable property has been extinguished by prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement of sale is invalid for non-compliance with the Alienation of Land Act and Matrimonial Property Act.
  3. 3 Whether undertakings by the defendant interrupted prescription under the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant gave undertakings or assurances which interrupted prescription and caused it to run afresh. The evidence showed that the defendant regarded the agreement as cancelled from 20 March 2003, and there was no credible evidence of ongoing assurances regarding transfer. The plaintiffs made no payments towards transfer costs, did not sign bond or transfer documents, and the bank closed its file. Correspondence confirmed the defendant's position that the agreement was cancelled. As a result, the claim for transfer was extinguished by prescription, and it was unnecessary to consider the other...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed with costs.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the costs of the interdict proceedings.