R.N.S v M.S.S and Others (049996/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 745 (13 August 2024)

R.N.S v M.S.S and Others (049996/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 745 (13 August 2024)

The applicant failed to provide evidence that the deceased and the first respondent were married in community of property, and the property was acquired by the deceased prior to the alleged marriage. Therefore, the property never formed part of any joint estate to which the applicant could claim entitlement. The applicant's reliance on the division of joint estate following her divorce is misplaced, as the property was not part of the joint estate. Furthermore, the property has undergone double sales, and the fourth respondent is the bona fide title holder. The applicant has no locus standi to seek cancellation of the deed of transfer, and her claim lies, if at all, against the first...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 745
Parties
Applicant: R[...] N[...] S[...]; Respondent: M[...] S[...] S[...]; Respondent: Mashala Joseph Lapane; Respondent: Moloko Mashala; Respondent: Sizeka Silvia Dlepu; Respondent: Nedbank (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds Pretoria
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2024
Case Number
049996/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Makume
Legal Topics
Transfer of Property, Double Sale, Locus Standi, Division of Joint Estate
Land and Property Civil Procedure Transfer of Property Double Sale Locus Standi Division of Joint Estate

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R[...] N[...] S[...]

Applicant

M[...] S[...] S[...]

Respondent

Mashala Joseph Lapane

Respondent

Moloko Mashala

Respondent

Sizeka Silvia Dlepu

Respondent

Nedbank (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the property ever form part of the joint estate of the deceased and the first respondent.
  2. 2 Is the applicant entitled to any share in the property by virtue of her marriage to the first respondent.
  3. 3 Is it legally feasible to reverse the transfer of the property from the fourth respondent to the estate of the deceased given the double sale.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide evidence that the deceased and the first respondent were married in community of property, and the property was acquired by the deceased prior to the alleged marriage. Therefore, the property never formed part of any joint estate to which the applicant could claim entitlement. The applicant's reliance on the division of joint estate following her divorce is misplaced, as the property was not part of the joint estate. Furthermore, the property has undergone double sales, and the fourth respondent is the bona fide title holder. The applicant has no locus standi to seek cancellation of the deed of transfer, and her claim lies, if at all, against the first...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the fourth respondent, such costs to be taxed on scale B as provided in Rule 67A of the Uniform Rules of Court.