Sebola and Another v Steen-Stenersen and Others (2017/22588; 2016/43175) [2020] ZAGPJHC 34 (18 February 2020)

Sebola and Another v Steen-Stenersen and Others (2017/22588; 2016/43175) [2020] ZAGPJHC 34 (18 February 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any fraud in the process of sale in execution and transfer of the property. The first respondent complied with the conditions of sale, including making suitable provision for payment of all monies due to the second respondent, as evidenced by the extended levy clearance certificate and the conveyancer's certificate. Payment in instalments was permissible under the Sectional Titles Act, and there was no evidence that the conveyancer's certificate was improperly issued. The applicants' allegations of fraud were unsupported by the facts, and there was no basis to set aside the transfer or rescind the judgments. The counter-application...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 34
Parties
Applicant: Mashilo Shadrack Sebola; Applicant: Nombeko Daphne Sebola; Respondent: Audun Steen-Stenersen; Respondent: The Body Corporate of the Monelmie; Respondent: Larry Smeyatsky; Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited; Respondent: The Sheriff of Roodepoort-FWJ Coetzee; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2020
Case Number
2017/22588; 2016/43175
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Prior Judgments
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs; counter-application postponed sine die with costs reserved.
Judges
C G Lamont
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Sale in Execution, Fraud in Transfer, Sectional Titles Act, Levy Clearance Certificate
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Sale in Execution Fraud in Transfer Sectional Titles Act Levy Clearance Certificate

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashilo Shadrack Sebola

Applicant

Nombeko Daphne Sebola

Applicant

Audun Steen-Stenersen

Respondent

The Body Corporate of the Monelmie

Respondent

Larry Smeyatsky

Respondent

The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

The Sheriff of Roodepoort-FWJ Coetzee

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Prior Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale in execution and transfer of the property to the first respondent was tainted by fraud and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established grounds for rescission of the judgments granted under case numbers 43175/2016 and 22588/2017.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent complied with the conditions of sale and the requirements of the Sectional Titles Act for transfer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any fraud in the process of sale in execution and transfer of the property. The first respondent complied with the conditions of sale, including making suitable provision for payment of all monies due to the second respondent, as evidenced by the extended levy clearance certificate and the conveyancer's certificate. Payment in instalments was permissible under the Sectional Titles Act, and there was no evidence that the conveyancer's certificate was improperly issued. The applicants' allegations of fraud were unsupported by the facts, and there was no basis to set aside the transfer or rescind the judgments. The counter-application...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs; counter-application postponed sine die with costs reserved.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is dismissed with costs, the applicants to pay jointly and severally the costs of all parties who incurred costs.
  • The counter-application is postponed sine die. The costs are reserved.