Weichelt and Others v Triponza Trading 276 CC and Another (19618/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 201 (15 May 2008)

Weichelt and Others v Triponza Trading 276 CC and Another (19618/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 201 (15 May 2008)

The court found that the right to register a servitude against the property vested in the Third Applicant until its deregistration. If the Third Applicant is restored, its rights would be revived and enforceable against both respondents. The First Applicant, not being a party to the first purchase agreement, cannot personally claim rights under it, despite being named in the second agreement. The prescription argument fails because the right to register the servitude only arose after municipal approval in December 2006. The agreements are not vague or unenforceable; the intention to register a servitude is clear. The Third Applicant has at least a prima facie right, and the balance of...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 201
Parties
Applicant: S A Weichelt; Applicant: C L Weichelt; Applicant: Food for Africa CC; Applicant: Exiro Trading CC; Respondent: Triponza Trading 276 CC; Respondent: Die Registrateur van Aktes
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2008
Case Number
19618/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Final Relief
Outcome
Interim interdict granted restraining transfer of the property pending final relief and possible restoration of the Third Applicant.
Judges
T M Makgoka
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Servitude Registration, Locus Standi, Close Corporation Restoration
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Servitude Registration Locus Standi Close Corporation Restoration

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S A Weichelt

Applicant

C L Weichelt

Applicant

Food for Africa CC

Applicant

Exiro Trading CC

Applicant

Triponza Trading 276 CC

Respondent

Die Registrateur van Aktes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Final Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent interim relief restraining transfer of the property pending final relief.
  2. 2 Whether the Third Applicant, having been deregistered, has locus standi to seek relief.
  3. 3 Whether the First Applicant acquired any rights under the first purchase agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the right to register a servitude against the property vested in the Third Applicant until its deregistration. If the Third Applicant is restored, its rights would be revived and enforceable against both respondents. The First Applicant, not being a party to the first purchase agreement, cannot personally claim rights under it, despite being named in the second agreement. The prescription argument fails because the right to register the servitude only arose after municipal approval in December 2006. The agreements are not vague or unenforceable; the intention to register a servitude is clear. The Third Applicant has at least a prima facie right, and the balance of...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted restraining transfer of the property pending final relief and possible restoration of the Third Applicant.

Orders

  • Pending finalization of proceedings for final relief to register the servitude, the First Respondent is interdicted and restrained from transferring the property to the Second Respondent or any other person or entity.
  • The Applicants shall apply for re-registration of the Third Applicant within 10 days of this order.