Rigacraft CC v Ramachela and Another (6967/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 259 (8 May 2015)

Rigacraft CC v Ramachela and Another (6967/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 259 (8 May 2015)

The court found that the Brusson scheme constituted a fraudulent and simulated transaction, void ab initio for non-compliance with the National Credit Act and lack of genuine intention to transfer ownership. The purported transfers to investors and subsequent mortgage bond registrations were invalid, as the father never intended to transfer ownership and the investors never intended to acquire it. Consequently, the applicant, having acquired the property through a chain of void transactions, is not the true owner and cannot vindicate the property. The respondent and his family are not unlawful occupiers under PIE, and it would not be just and equitable to grant an eviction order. The...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 259
Parties
Applicant: Rigacraft CC; Respondent: Pholoso Jason Ramachela; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality Authority
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Case Number
6967/2014
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Simulated Transaction, Fraudulent Transfer, National Credit Act Non Compliance, Onus in Eviction, Vindicatory Relief
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Simulated Transaction Fraudulent Transfer National Credit Act Non Compliance Onus in Eviction Vindicatory Relief

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rigacraft CC

Applicant

Pholoso Jason Ramachela

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to evict the first respondent and other occupiers from the property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is the true owner of the property given the involvement of the Brusson scheme.
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of ownership through the Brusson scheme was valid or void due to fraud and non-compliance with the National Credit Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Brusson scheme constituted a fraudulent and simulated transaction, void ab initio for non-compliance with the National Credit Act and lack of genuine intention to transfer ownership. The purported transfers to investors and subsequent mortgage bond registrations were invalid, as the father never intended to transfer ownership and the investors never intended to acquire it. Consequently, the applicant, having acquired the property through a chain of void transactions, is not the true owner and cannot vindicate the property. The respondent and his family are not unlawful occupiers under PIE, and it would not be just and equitable to grant an eviction order. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.