Sheriff of High Court, Centurion West v Bemdi Financial Solutions CC and Another (2021/3338) [2025] ZAGPJHC 458 (12 May 2025)
The court found that the respondents, on their own version, were liable under the sale agreement and had paid all amounts owing except for interest, which was settled shortly before the hearing. The litigation was unnecessary and resulted solely from the respondents' delays in finalizing payments. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 458
- Parties
- Applicant: Sheriff of the High Court, Centurion West; Respondent: Bemdi Financial Solutions CC; Respondent: Kgosi Maepa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2021/3338
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Cancellation of Sale Agreement and Retention of Deposit
- Outcome
- Application withdrawn; punitive costs awarded against the respondents.
- Judges
- Wright
- Legal Topics
- Sale in Execution, Cancellation of Agreement, Retention of Deposit, Punitive Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sheriff of the High Court, Centurion West
Applicant
Bemdi Financial Solutions CC
Respondent
Kgosi Maepa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Cancellation of Sale Agreement and Retention of Deposit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sale agreement concluded at the sale in execution should be cancelled due to non-payment of the purchase price.
- 2 Whether the sheriff is entitled to retain the deposit paid by the purchaser.
- 3 Whether punitive costs should be awarded against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, on their own version, were liable under the sale agreement and had paid all amounts owing except for interest, which was settled shortly before the hearing. The litigation was unnecessary and resulted solely from the respondents' delays in finalizing payments. The court held that punitive costs were justified in the circumstances, as the applicant was compelled to initiate proceedings due to the respondents' conduct, despite eventual compliance. The application was withdrawn, but costs on a punitive scale were awarded against the respondents.
Court Disposition
Application withdrawn; punitive costs awarded against the respondents.
Orders
- The application is withdrawn.
- The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application on a punitive scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
47 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2021/3338
Reportable: No
Of interest to other judges: No
Revised
12 MAY 2025
THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT, CENTURION WEST Applicant
and
BEMDI FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS CC
First Respondent
KGOSI MAEPA
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. On 4 September 2023, the applicant, the sheriff for Centurion, duly authorized, sold an immovable property at a sale in execution. The sale agreement reflects that the present second respondent, Mr Maepa concluded the agreement, by signing it expressly on behalf of the present first respondent, Bemdi Financial Solutions CC. Mr Maepa bound himself as surety.
2. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr Maepa paid the deposit. Mr Maepa is clearly the moving force behind Bemdi.
3. The sheriff later cancelled the agreement on the required notice when the balance of the purchase price was not paid.
4. In the present application, the sheriff seeks orders that the agreement be cancelled, the property resold and that the sheriff retain the deposit.
5. Mr Maepa filed an answering affidavit. He raises technical legal points which are not easy to follow. Simply put, Mr Maepa alleges that neither he nor Bemdi are liable under the sale agreement.
6. In a replying affidavit, the sheriff points out with apparent justification that whatever case Mr Maepa attempted to raise in answer is without merit.
7. It is not necessary to delve into the minutiae of Mr Maepa’s points.
8. The applicant’s attorney has filed a supplementary affidavit dealing in detail with what happened at a hearing of the present application on 4 September 2024.
9. Mr Maepa appeared. He addressed the court in person. He made no attempt to rely on his answering affidavit. He effectively admitted liability on behalf of Bemdi and personal liability. He simply asked for time. He said that he had paid all the costs necessary to proceed with the sale to Bemdi. He asked that the case be postponed with costs on the party and party scale rather than on a punitive scale. He asked that interest be waived by the relevant bank as execution creditor. He did not allege that he was not liable for interest. He said simply that he could not afford interest.
10. The matter was postponed.
11. There is correspondence on record since then. Mr Maepa’s position is clear. On his own version, he and Bemdi are liable and he has paid everything owing but he simply wants the bank to waive interest. The bank won’t.
12. Mr Maepa paid the interest shortly before the present hearing. The last amount of outstanding interest was paid as late as Friday, three days ago.
13. Mr Venter for the applicant withdraws the application but he wants costs of the application on a punitive scale.
14. Mr Maepa addressed me in person. He confirmed that he represented Bemdi and himself. He said that he genuinely did not have funds in time. I believe Mr Maepa but the present litigation was wholly unnecessary in the end and only because of delays by Mr Maepa in finalizing payments to the bank.
15. In my view, punitive costs are called for.
16. A draft order was prepared by Mr Venter.
ORDER
X -
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD: 12 May 2025
DELIVERED: 12 May 2025
APPEARANCES:
Applicant Adv AJ Venter
ajventer@law.co.za
082 551 4108
Instructed by Martins Weir-Smith Inc
011 450 3054
pa@mwlaw.co.za
Respondent Mr Maepa in person
Instructed by