Vundle and Another v Master of the High Court, Mthatha and Another (2595/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 28 (21 July 2020)

Vundle and Another v Master of the High Court, Mthatha and Another (2595/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 28 (21 July 2020)

The court found that the second respondent failed to properly plead prescription, and even if prescription had been pleaded, ongoing acknowledgments by the executor and steps taken to enforce the sale agreement interrupted prescription. However, both sale agreements relied upon by the applicants were invalid: the first was not concluded by the executor and lacked proper description and authority, while the second was tainted by misrepresentation regarding the purchase price and did not reflect the true intention of the parties. The executor failed to approach the Master for approval as required by section 47 of the Administration of Estates Act. The court held that it could not usurp the...

Citation
[2020] ZAECMHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Ntombiyomzi Vundle; Applicant: Mthuthuzeli M Nala; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Mthatha; Respondent: Akhona Lumwana
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2020
Case Number
2595/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Written Submissions
Outcome
Application dismissed on the merits; point in limine on prescription dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Dawood
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Sale of Estate Property, Executor Powers, Prescription, Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Sale of Estate Property Executor Powers Prescription Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntombiyomzi Vundle

Applicant

Mthuthuzeli M Nala

Applicant

The Master of the High Court, Mthatha

Respondent

Akhona Lumwana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' claim to transfer of Erf 9 Flagstaff has prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the sale agreements relied upon by the applicants are valid and enforceable under the Alienation of Land Act.
  3. 3 Whether the executor complied with statutory requirements before seeking transfer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent failed to properly plead prescription, and even if prescription had been pleaded, ongoing acknowledgments by the executor and steps taken to enforce the sale agreement interrupted prescription. However, both sale agreements relied upon by the applicants were invalid: the first was not concluded by the executor and lacked proper description and authority, while the second was tainted by misrepresentation regarding the purchase price and did not reflect the true intention of the parties. The executor failed to approach the Master for approval as required by section 47 of the Administration of Estates Act. The court held that it could not usurp the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed on the merits; point in limine on prescription dismissed; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The point in limine raised by the second respondent on prescription is dismissed.
  • The application is dismissed.