---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

 

 

 Case no: 1039/2017

In the matter between:

 

BUSINESS PARTNERS LIMITED                                                       Applicant/Plaintiff

 

and

 

PHILIP RICHARD SMITH N.O.                                                          1^st Respondent/Defendant

 

WILHELMINA JACOBA SMITH N.O.                                               2^nd Respondent/Defendant

 

MARIUS SHARDELOW N.O.                                                               3^rd Respondent/Defendant

 

PS 2031 INVESTMENT                                                                          Intervening Party/Buyer

 

PAUL FARRELL 18 BODY CORPORATE                                         Intervening Party/BC

 

CORAM:                   DAFFUE J

 

HEARD ON:             18 NOVEMBER 2021

 

DELIVERED ON:    3 DECEMBER 2021

 

This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, and release to SAFLII.  The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 15:00 on 3 December 2021.

 

I           INTRODUCTION

 

[1]           Applications in terms of rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court are supposed to be informal and inexpensive.  These applications are almost always heard by a judge in chambers who considers the documents and in particular the report of the sheriff without considering oral or written argument on behalf of any of the parties.  The present application is an exception to the rule and instead of a judge in chambers considering the application expeditiously and at nominal costs to the parties involved, a full-blown opposed application was eventually heard four years after the sale of execution.

 

II          THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

 

[2]           Spilg J explained the purpose and function of rule 46(11) clearly, unambiguously and with respect, correctly, in the following words:[1]

“[6]     The purpose of rule 46(11) is plain. It provides an expeditious and cost-effective means of reselling a property pursuant to a judicial sale, without compromising the rights of notice and the audi alteram partem rule. Such an expedited procedure at nominal cost is necessary to ensure that the property is capable of realisation for the benefit of both creditors and the debtor, and is sold at the least expense in a manner that does not increase the interest on the outstanding debt. This process also does not unnecessarily extend the period of servicing any bond that is still outstanding on the property. No purchaser at a sale in execution should be permitted to achieve the very antithesis, namely the retardation of the realisation of property, and incurring additional debt that would result in a smaller dividend available to creditors and an increased liability for the execution debtor, which may result in additional assets being subjected to attachment and execution.”

 

[3]       No doubt, procedural issues and potential difficult constitutional questions in accordance with the provisions of s 34 of the Constitution may be raised as mentioned by Wallis J (as he then was)[2] as sub-rule 46(11)(b) is silent on the time period within which the application is to be brought and no clear procedure has been set out on how a defaulting purchaser is required to respond in the event of an intention to oppose the application.  However, in casu it is unnecessary to deal with these aspects, given the fact that all interest parties have filed affidavits, to wit the plaintiff, Business Partners Ltd, the trustees of the Smith Family Trust as the judgment debtor, the defaulting purchaser as well as the Body Corporate of the sectional title scheme in which the particular immovable property, the subject of the sale in execution is situated.

 

III         THE PARTIES

 

[4]       The parties as eventually cited in the application proceedings before me are Business Partners Ltd, the plaintiff/applicant (herein later referred to as “Business Partners”) who obtained default judgment on 11 September 2017 against the three trustees of the Smith Family Trust (‘the Trust”) and three others, jointly and severally, in the following terms[3]:

“1.        Payment of the amount of R1 057 807.22;

 

 2.         Payment of interest on the aforementioned amount at a rate of 13.5% per annum from 26 January 2017 to date of payment;

 

 3.         Costs of suit on a scale as between attorney and client;”

 

Furthermore, as against the aforesaid trustees of the Trust, the following property was declared especially executable:

“(a)  Section No. 3 as shown and more fully described on Sectional Plan No.  SS94/1997 in the Scheme known as Paul Farrel (sic, it must be Farrell) 18 in respect of land and building or buildings situated at Pentagon Park, Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality of which Section the floor area, according to the said Sectional Plan, is 214 square meters in extent; and

 

(b)   An undivided share in the common property in the scheme apportioned to the said Section in accordance with the participation quota as endorsed on the said Sectional Plan held under Deed of Transfer ST7333/2015; and

 

(c)    An exclusive use area described as T3, measuring 341 square meters being as such part of the common property, comprising the land and the Scheme known as Paul Farrel 18 in respect of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality as shown and more fully described on Sectional Plan No.  SS83/2015 and held by Notarial Deed of Cession No.  SK454/2015.”

 

[5]       The three trustees of the Trust against whom judgment was granted as mentioned in the previous paragraph are cited as 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents/defendants in the application.

[6]       The purchaser of the immovable property which was declared especially executable as mentioned supra, to wit PS 2031 Investments CC (“the purchaser”) as well as the Paul Farrell 18 Body Corporate (“the BC”) intervened as parties to the application at an earlier stage.  I have not seen any formal applications for intervention or court orders in this regard, but am satisfied that their evidence and submissions should be considered in order to do justice.

 

[7]        Adv J Els appeared before me on behalf of Business Partners, Mr A Saunderson on behalf of the purchaser and Mrs A Smith on behalf of the Trust and the BC.

 

IV        THE RULE 46(11) APPLICATION

 

[8]        The sheriff gave notice of his intention to approach a judge in chambers on 24 August 2018 for the following orders which are loosely translated from the Afrikaans version and paraphrased:

 

a)        That the sale in execution of unit 3 Paul Farrell, Pentagonpark, Bloemfontein which was held on 22 November 2017 be cancelled in accordance with the provisions of rule 46(11);

 

b)        That the immovable property be auctioned again for the resale thereof;

 

c)         That PS 2031 Investment CC t/a Kalema Technology’s CC & Lefa Tlhapuletsa, jointly and severally, the one to pay the other to be absolved, be held liable for the wasted costs and damages consequent upon the cancellation of the sale in execution;

 

d)        That the deposit of R777 500.00 paid by the purchaser be kept in trust by the sheriff until the plaintiff has quantified his damages and judgment obtained in respect thereof in accordance with rule 46(11)(b);

 

e)        That the auctioneers’ commission payable to the sheriff together with VAT in the amount of R37 021.50 which was paid by the purchaser be forfeited in favour of the sheriff.

 

[9]        The sheriff’s report attached to the notice of motion confirms that the highest bid obtained at the auction held on 22 November 2017 was for the amount of R1 465 000.00 and that Mr Lefa Tlhapuletsa signed the conditions of sale in his representative capacity.  Although the purchaser only needed to pay 10% of the purchase price, to wit R146 500.00, it paid a total of R777 500.00 and furthermore issued a guarantee for payment of the balance purchase price of R732 500.00.

 

[10]     It is apparent from the sheriff’s report that the purchaser and the BC were in dispute pertaining to the payment of levies as provided for in clause 4.7.2 of the conditions of sale and consequently, registration of transfer could not be proceeded with as the BC refused to issue the required certificate in terms of s 15B(3) of the Sectional Titles Act.[4]  Therefore, cancellation was sought as a consequence of the purchaser’s alleged non-compliance with clause 4.7.2 of the conditions of sale, the sheriff having notified the purchaser of cancellation in clause 12 of the report.

 

V         HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION

 

[11]     It is deemed apposite to provide the following history of the litigation:

 

11.1    As mentioned, the application was issued by the sheriff in order to be heard by a judge in chambers on 24 August 2018.  This was nearly a year after the sale in execution.  I shall deal with the reasons for the delay infra.

 

11.2    On 26 November 2018 the purchaser filed a so-called supplementary affidavit to correct his initial answering affidavit which was not properly commissioned before a Commissioner of Oaths.  The purchaser alleged that the amount of R47 829.88 due and payable for outstanding levies was paid and the conveyancers, McIntyre & Van Der Post, were instructed to pay over that amount to the BC, which so it was averred, was in fact done.  Proof of an electronic transfer of these funds from the conveyancers’ bank account to the BC’s account was attached.  It must be mentioned that it was explained during the hearing that the funds were reversed a few days later as the BC’s account details were incorrectly quoted.

 

[12]    In paragraph 4 of the answering affidavit the purchaser indicated under the heading “counter-application” that it intended to utilise the affidavit in support of certain relief claimed.  In doing so, the usual practice was departed from completely.  However, my view is that technicalities should be set aside in order to deal with the real issues equitably.  In his counter-application the purchaser requests the court not to cancel the deed of sale, but to direct the BC to issue the required clearance certificate in order to ensure transfer of the property in the name of the purchaser, alternative that the court determine exactly what amount is due and payable to the BC.  A costs order was also sought against the administrator of the BC in his personal capacity. 

 

[13]     On 7 January 2019 the Trust as the execution debtor filed an affidavit, deposed to by the first respondent.  The Trust complained that it had suffered damages and indicated the Trust’s intention to claim damages as a result of the delay caused by the purchaser.  Four separate claims are relied upon and the Trust seeks a judgment from the court in respect of each claim.  These relate to lost discount arranged with its bank, unnecessary overdraft fees paid to the bank, loss in respect of rental and loss of profit pertaining to the selling price of the property.  I do not intend to deal with this any further as it is not the opportune moment to do so.  The Trust should issue summons if it still intends to claim damages.  Any order that I grant herein cannot prejudice the Trust’s rights to claim what it believes it is entitled to.

 

[14]     The third respondent, Mr Shardelow, an accountant and allegedly an independent trustee, clearly sided with the BC in an affidavit filed on 7 January 2019.  It is his case that no documents (presumably the summons of Business Partners) were served upon him and that he only became aware of the sale in execution on 25 February 2018.  He went so far to submit that Mr Gerdener of McIntyre & Van der Post as well as the sheriff should be ordered to make available several documents relating to the loan, due diligence, the financial information, the application, the approval process (presumably the Trust’s application to Business Partners) and the execution sale.  This is totally irrelevant to the present proceedings and he should obtain proper legal advice.  He is not entitled to relief. 

 

[15]    Also on 7 January 2019 a further affidavit was filed, allegedly on behalf of the BC which was deposed to by Mr CG Nel in his capacity as administrator of the BC and in his alleged personal capacity, relying for his authority on annexures BC 1.1 and 1.2.  All three affidavits just mentioned were filed on the same day by Shardelow Smith Attorneys.  Annexure BC 1.1 serves as proof of a special resolution allegedly taken by the owners of the Sectional Title Scheme.  A certain Izanne Roos signed as the owner of sections 1 and 2 and an unidentified person signed on behalf of the Trust.  It appears to be the signature of Mr Shardelow.    Mr Nel insists that the levies charged by the BC are reasonable.  He submits in the first place that the court should cancel the sale in execution, but furthermore, orders should be granted against the purchaser for payment of outstanding levies in accordance with s 3(2) in the amount of R61 239.12 calculated up to November 2018 and outstanding levies in terms of s 3(3)[5] in the amount of R232 440.90 calculated up to November 2018.

 

[16]    On 5 February 2019 Business Partners filed an affidavit.  It was confirmed that no agreement could be reached between the purchaser and the BC pertaining to the exact amount due to the BC and that a deadlock had arisen.  It must be mentioned at this stage that McIntyre and Van der Post acted as attorneys for Business Partners in the action and that the firm instructed the sheriff to sell the property in terms of the rules upon default judgment being granted.  This firm not only continued to act for Business Partners throughout the proceedings, but had to attend to registration of transfer of the property as well.  It is alleged in the affidavit of Business Partners that by the end of February 2018 the levies payable to the BC was a mere R10 088.00 as informed by the administrator of the BC, Mr Nel in his letter of 27 February 2018.  This included arrear levies from November 2017 (when the sale in execution took place) to February 2018.  The monthly levy was R 2 522.00.  The amount claimed by the BC increased over the following months to an enormous amount in excess of R250 000.00 which included the costs of a security gate “leased” in the amount of R136 800.00 from a CC of which Mr Nel is a member.  Business Partners confirmed in the affidavit that either of the two options available, to wit the cancellation of the sale due to non-performance by the purchaser, alternatively the issuing of a declaratory order in respect of the levies due to the BC on payment of which the BC must issue a certificate to effect transfer, was acceptable to it.  It was reiterated that Business Partners did not have any interest in the dispute between the BC and the purchaser.  The alternative relief is in line with what the purchaser seeks in the counter-claim.

 

[17]     The matter was set down for hearing on three previous occasions.  On 24 August 2018 Rampai J removed the matter from the roll.  Loubser J removed it from the roll on 11 April 2019.  None of the parties informed me why the matter was enrolled in the second instance, who enrolled it and what caused the removal from the roll.  On 23 May 2019 Morobane AJ removed the matter from the roll.  In this case Mr Saunderson explained that he requested a removal from the roll in so far as the purchaser had referred the matter to the Ombud before this date and he was anticipating a response from the Ombud. 

 

[18]     The matter was set down for hearing on 18 November 2021 by McIntyre & Van Der Post on behalf of Business Partners.  A supplementary affidavit was also filed on behalf of Business Partners on 13 October 2021.  It was confirmed in the affidavit that the Ombud rejected the referral on 23 July 2021 as he did not have jurisdiction due to the fact that the purchaser was not a registered sectional title owner.  Consequently, the dispute pertaining to levies was not considered.   Business Partners confirmed that the purchaser was still in default by not complying with the obligations in terms of the conditions of sale.  It was mentioned that Mr Nel, the administrator of the BC, indicated in a letter dated 28 July 2021 that the BC would be willing to accept an amount of R393 600.00 in full and final settlement of the claims for levies, subject to certain conditions.  However, the purchaser has failed to pay the aforesaid amount, although it was in beneficial occupation of the property all the time.

 

[19]     After the close of the roll further affidavits were filed as late as 16 November 2021, a mere two days before the hearing of the matter.  These were filed by the BC and the third respondent.  Several accusations have been made in the affidavit of the third respondent against the sheriff and Mr Gerdener of McIntyre & Van Der Post which is unnecessary to deal with.  In the BC’s affidavit, it is claimed that the arrears in respect of levies have increased to in excess of R500 000.00.  It is alleged that the sheriff must pay these levies to the BC and for him to recover it from the purchaser.  Further allegations are made which will also be dealt with later herein in so far as these may be regarded as relevant.

 

[20]     Heads of argument have been filed previously and I have also received further heads of argument, even additional heads of argument, from the parties.  Clearly, what was supposed to be an expeditious and cost-effective procedure, turned out to be nothing but a nightmare.

 

[21]     I indicated to the parties during argument the only way to solve the dispute is to be pragmatic and to adopt a practical approach.  Consequently, I requested during oral argument to be provided with the following documents and/or confirmation after the hearing, to wit:

1.    A detailed calculation of the levies allegedly payable by the purchaser to the BC until the end of February 2022;

 

2.    What amounts the purchaser alleges are due and payable in respect of levies and how these are calculated.

 

[22]     During argument I also allowed the parties an opportunity to consider how clause 4.6 of the conditions of sale should be interpreted, specifically pertaining to the interest to be levied.  I am satisfied, having considered the submissions in this regard, that the parties agreed that interest at the rate of 13.5% should be paid by the purchaser on the capital amount of the judgment debt, to wit R1 057 807.22 from 22 December 2017 to date of payment.

 

 

 

VI        EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES

 

[23]     It is apparent that the purchaser went out of its way to comply with its contractual obligations.  It not only paid 10% of the purchase price on the date of the sale in execution, but more than 50% of the purchase price.  A guarantee was also issued for the balance purchase price and in this regard there was certainly full compliance with the conditions of sale. 

 

[24]     The transfer costs of McIntyre & Van Der Post have been paid as well as what was due to the Municipality at the stage when the sheriff approached the court for cancellation of the sale.  The only issue in dispute was and remains the payment of levies to the BC.

 

[25]     The letter of McIntyre & Van Der Post, dated 17 January 2018, indicating that the purchaser was in breach of contract for failing to issue a guarantee for the balance purchase price is incorrect.  I refer to the sheriff’s report supra.

 

[26]     It is apparent from the BC’s statement annexed as annexure 1.4 of the sheriff’s report that levies in the amount of R238 332.20 was claimed to be outstanding as at 1 July 2018.  This must be seen against the backdrop of the monthly levy in respect of the property (section 3) of R2 509.56.  This is the amount debited to the account on 1 October 2017.  It is clear that amounts in respect of interest on unpaid levies, a management fee in respect of late payment and a fee in respect of an illegal structure were charged as well.  The amounts of R372.68, R450.00 and R246.27 were debited before the sale in execution on 22 November 2017.  Save for these amounts, there were no arrears on the account in respect of the property at the stage when the purchaser purchased it. 

 

[27]     The aforesaid statement contains numerous huge figures that can never equate to levies, unless charged in accordance with s 3(3) in terms of a special resolution.  I refer to items such as repairs to certain screens, the purchase of the electric gate and legal costs.  The purchase price of the electric gate charged against the account of the owner of the property (section 3) is R57 515.13.  Legal costs of R19 369.00, R26 531.00, R42 043.22 and R15 135.56 are claimed as well.  Therefore, the total as on 1 July 2018 amounted to R238 332.20.

 

[28]     The information provided by the Body Corporate after the hearing and as requested by the court are calculated as follows:

 

Section 3(2) contributions:

a.             Period up to end July 20218 – Buyer’s own agreed

amount                                                                                   R   47 829-88

b.             Period August 2018 to November 2021

c.              (R2 522 x 40 months)                                                        R 100 880-00

d.             Insurance levy added

(R15 192 / 12 months x 40 months)                                     R   50 640-00

TOTAL 3(2) LEVIES                                                                       R 199 349-88

Section 3(3) special contributions                                                    R 293 486-00

a.             Interest on section 3(2) levies at 2% per month                   R   98 871-20

b.             Interest on section 3(3) levies at 2% per month                  R 112 200-00

TOTAL INTEREST                                                                          R 212 071-20

TOTAL                                                                                               R 704 907.08

 

[29]     It is evident that the BC relies on resolutions allegedly taken on 26 March 2018 and at an annual general meeting of 2017.  More about this later.

 

[30]     Instead of the court having to adjudicate the matter based on a relatively simple and customary report of the sheriff under rule 46(11)(a), matters got out of hand with the various affidavits and supplementary affidavits filed by the parties hereto.  Although a formal application in terms of rule 6 was unnecessary, such application would have provided for the customary three sets of affidavits, to wit a founding affidavit, answering affidavit(s) and a replying affidavit.  Should any party wish to intervene in an application, there should be a formal application for intervention in terms of the rule 12 which did not occur in casu.  However, I have decided to deal with the matter in order to obtain a solution which I deem practicable in the circumstances. 

 

[31]     I am not prepared to grant relief for cancellation of the conditions of sale.  In my view the purchaser was not only bona fide, but complied with reasonable requests.  Although there was apparently a misunderstanding earlier in so far as the purchaser was allegedly not aware of the fact that he had bought a sectional title unit (which obviously can be no excuse) he offered to pay the levies which were due by July 2018 in the amount of R47 829.88.  In fact, McIntyre & Van Der Post, the conveyancers, paid this amount electronically to the account of the BC, but apparently an incorrect account number was provided as a result of which the payment was returned to the attorneys on 25 September 2018. 

 

[32]    The purchaser shall be liable for the payment of levies as well as special levies if these levies are calculated and levied in accordance with resolutions taken either at a general annual meeting of owners/trustees, or a special meeting by the owners/trustees.  I am not satisfied that the BC can now refuse to issue the appropriate certificate to the attorneys in order for them to effect transfer of the property to the purchaser.  It was suggested by Mrs Smith on behalf of the BC that the amount claimed should be paid into the trust account of the BC, or at least properly guaranteed, even under protest, and that the purchaser be afforded the opportunity to claim back any monies paid more than it was supposed to pay in a separate action.  Mr Saunderson submitted that such a cause is unnecessary and that the court should declare what amount is due and payable and that this be paid with directions to the BC to issue the appropriate certificate to enable transfer to be effected. 

 

[33]     It is accepted that the guaranty that was issued by the purchaser in respect of the balance purchase price would have expired by now, nearly four years down the line.  Mr Saunderson has indicated that there will be no problem to issue a fresh guarantee and that the purchaser was willing and able to do so.

 

[34]     I do not deem it necessary to get involved in the dispute pertaining to levies, either normal levies or special levies and/or management fees and/or interest, over and above that I intend to declare payable by the purchaser to the BC for purposes of the transfer, save to state that the BC would be within its rights to issue summons in the appropriate court for payment what it believes is due and payable to it in excess of the amount declared by the court to be payable for purposes of the present proceedings.  I want to emphasise: this judgment may not be relied upon as a defence that no further levies are due and payable to the BC in respect of the property for the period November 2017 to February 2022.

 

[35]     I have already mentioned the BC’s claims in respect of the gate purchase and legal fees in order to arrive at the outstanding amount of R238 332.20 as on 1 July 2018.  I do not want to judge the claim, save to say that I find it extraordinary that legal costs could be charge in the enormous amounts without providing bills of costs to substantiate the amounts.  The adjudication hereof is left for a different court in appropriate proceedings or to the Ombud.  The latest figures received from the BC after hearing argument add up to R704 907.08, but does not make provision for further levies until the end of February 2022.  The monthly levy at present is R2 522 which has been calculated until November 2021.  In my view the amount to be paid by the purchaser in order to obtain the required certificate in terms of s 15B(3) of the Sectional Titles Act is the amount of R199 349.88 as calculated by the BC in the email forwarded after the hearing plus the levies for December 2021, January 2022 and February 2022 in the total amount of R7 566.  My order will therefore provide for payment of the amount of R206 915.88 to be made to the BC in order to obtain a certificate valid until February 2022. 

 

[36]     I am not prepared to direct the purchaser to make any contribution towards the s 3(3) special levies or interest.  I have earlier indicated some of the extraordinary amounts claimed for inter alia legal fees.  It appears from the latest statement of the BC that Mr Nel, the management agent, has charged more than R150 000.00 in defending the BC.  According to the statement he is entitled to be paid by the hour.  If he charges a R1000.00 per hour, he has worked 150 hours on the matter which is equal to nearly 19 full eight hour days.  This appears to be unbelievable, but the BC may be able to prove its claim in a different forum and with the leading of proper and acceptable evidence.  The resolution attached to the papers to be found on page 16 does not provide for management fees to be paid at a specific rate.  I am not satisfied with the information before me that the owners of the Sectional Title Scheme agreed to pay the enormous amounts claimed.

 

[37]     The Trust is aggrieved by the delay that was caused in this whole process and is of the view that the damages suffered by it should be paid.  This claim can never be the subject of the present dispute and the orders to be made herein will have no effect on the rights of the Trust to issue summons to claim damages in the appropriate forum against whoever it is so advised.  I reiterate: this judgment and the orders to be granted do not close the doors of the court for the Trust to claim any damages allegedly suffered from whoever it is advised to be the wrongdoers.  In the same vein, the same applies to the rights of the BC to claim whatever it alleges remains due and payable to it. 

 

VII       THE ORDERS

 

[38]     Consequently the following orders are issued:

 

1.    The application for the cancellation of the sale in execution dated 22 November 2017 is dismissed.

 

2.    The Paul Farrell 18 Body Corporate is directed to forthwith issue the appropriate certificate in terms of section 15B(3) of the Sectional Titles Act, 95 of 1986, valid until 28 February 2022 on receipt of the amount of R206 915.88, which payment shall be effected on/or before 17 January 2022.

 

3.    The purchaser, PS 2031 Investments CC, shall ensure that a fresh guarantee is issued for the balance purchase price of the property bought in execution, to wit:

(a)     Section No. 3 as shown and more fully described on Sectional Plan No.  SS94/1997 in the Scheme known as Paul Farrell 18 in respect of land and building or buildings situated at Pentagon Park, Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality of which Section the floor area, according to the said Sectional Plan, is 214 square meters in extent; and

 

(b)       An undivided share in the common property in the scheme apportioned to the said Section in accordance with the participation quota as endorsed on the said Sectional Plan held under Deed of Transfer ST7333/2015; and

 

(c)       An exclusive use area described as T3, measuring 341 square meters being as such part of the common property, comprising the land and the Scheme known as Paul Farrell 18 in respect of Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality as shown and more fully described on Sectional Plan No.  SS83/2015 and held by Notarial Deed of Cession No.  SK454/2015.

 

together with interest at the rate of 13.5% per annum from 22 December 2017 to date of payment on the judgment debt of R1 057 807.22 and to pay all further costs and expenses to obtain a valid clearance certificate from the Mangaung Municipality for the period until 28 February 2022 within 7 days of being requested by McIntyre & Van Der Post attorneys.

 

4.    In the event of impossibility to register the property in the name of the purchaser on/or before 28 February 2022, the purchaser shall pay the amounts due to the Mangaung Municipality and the Body Corporate for March 2022 immediately on request by McIntyre & Van Der Post in order to receive extended clearance certificates.

 

5.    Each of the parties hereto shall be responsible for the payment of their own legal costs in respect of this application.  

 

 

 

JP DAFFUE J

 

 

On behalf of the Applicant/Plaintiff:                              Adv J Els

Instructed by:                                                                  McIntyre & Van Der Post

                                                                                        BLOEMFONTEIN

 

 

 

On behalf of the 1^st – 3^rd Respondents/Defendants &

on behalf of the Intervening Party/ Body Corporate:     Mrs A Smith            

Instructed by:                                                                  Shardelow Smith Attorneys

                                                                                        BLOEMFONTEIN

 

On behalf of the Intervening Party / Buyer:                    Mr AE Saunderson            

Instructed by:                                                                   Hill, McHardy & Herbst Inc

                                                                                         BLOEMFONTEIN

---