Van Der Nest v Bronkhorst and Others (M203/16) [2016] ZANWHC 19 (29 April 2016)

Van Der Nest v Bronkhorst and Others (M203/16) [2016] ZANWHC 19 (29 April 2016)

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict, as he did not provide sufficient facts to show compliance with the conditions precedent in the sale agreement or that the time periods were waived. The loan was obtained out of time, and there is no evidence that the first respondent condoned this or that the guarantee was tendered timeously. The applicant's claim for specific performance is likely prescribed, as the right arose in January 2008 and action was only instituted in April 2016. The continued payment of occupational interest does not conclusively show that the agreement remained operative. As the applicant did not cross the first hurdle for interim...

Citation
[2016] ZANWHC 19
Parties
Applicant: Robert van der Nest; Respondent: Pieter Johannes Lodewyk Bronkhorst; Respondent: Combrink Kgatshe Incorporated; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: Apie van Rensburg
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Case Number
M203/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Prescription, Interim Interdict, Sale of Land
Land and Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Prescription Interim Interdict Sale of Land

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

Parties

Robert van der Nest

Applicant

Pieter Johannes Lodewyk Bronkhorst

Respondent

Combrink Kgatshe Incorporated

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Apie van Rensburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a prima facie right to an interim interdict preventing alienation of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the conditions precedent in the sale agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim for specific performance has prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict, as he did not provide sufficient facts to show compliance with the conditions precedent in the sale agreement or that the time periods were waived. The loan was obtained out of time, and there is no evidence that the first respondent condoned this or that the guarantee was tendered timeously. The applicant's claim for specific performance is likely prescribed, as the right arose in January 2008 and action was only instituted in April 2016. The continued payment of occupational interest does not conclusively show that the agreement remained operative. As the applicant did not cross the first hurdle for interim...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to be taxed on an attorney and client scale.