Secrivest Twenty (Pty) Ltd v Nyubuse (514/07) [2007] ZAECHC 91 (14 August 2007)

Secrivest Twenty (Pty) Ltd v Nyubuse (514/07) [2007] ZAECHC 91 (14 August 2007)

The respondent breached the agreement of sale by failing to provide the required guarantee for the balance of the purchase price within the stipulated period. The applicant was not in breach of the suspensive condition, as the agreement did not require notice to the respondent of fulfilment of the condition, and the respondent's argument that he was relieved of his obligation is unfounded. The retention of the deposit by the applicant is justified under the forfeiture clause, as the respondent defaulted and failed to remedy the breach after notice. The requirements of PIE were complied with, and the respondent's application for postponement was refused as all relevant affidavits had been...

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 91
Parties
Applicant: Secrivest Twenty (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mazisi Nyubuse
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2007
Case Number
514/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application for eviction granted; respondent ordered to vacate the property within one calendar month and to pay costs.
Judges
N Dambuza
Legal Topics
Eviction, Breach of Contract, Sectional Title Scheme, Suspensive Condition, Deposit Forfeiture
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Breach of Contract Sectional Title Scheme Suspensive Condition Deposit Forfeiture

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secrivest Twenty (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mazisi Nyubuse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the agreement of sale by failing to provide a guarantee for the balance of the purchase price within the stipulated period.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was in breach of the agreement by failing to provide approval of the site development plan, subdivision, consolidation, and rezoning as required by the suspensive condition.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's cancellation of the agreement was valid and whether the respondent is entitled to restitution of the deposit.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent breached the agreement of sale by failing to provide the required guarantee for the balance of the purchase price within the stipulated period. The applicant was not in breach of the suspensive condition, as the agreement did not require notice to the respondent of fulfilment of the condition, and the respondent's argument that he was relieved of his obligation is unfounded. The retention of the deposit by the applicant is justified under the forfeiture clause, as the respondent defaulted and failed to remedy the breach after notice. The requirements of PIE were complied with, and the respondent's application for postponement was refused as all relevant affidavits had been...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction granted; respondent ordered to vacate the property within one calendar month and to pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent and all persons occupying Unit 52, Scheme B, Sectional Title Scheme, Coral Wood, Beacon Bay, East London are evicted from the property on a date and in a manner to be determined by the court.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.