---

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

CASE NO: 14679/09

In the matter between

R G Applicant

and

J G First Respondent

RAVINDRA SURUJBELLY Second Respondent

YOGIS GOVENDER Third Respondent

REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (KZN) Fourth Respondent

____________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

____________________________________________________________

1. On 22 October 2009 the Applicant launched urgent application for cancellation of a sale agreement concluded in respect of an immovable property and ancillary relief, on the basis that:

(a) she was married to the First Respondent, in community of property;

(b) the First Respondent sold the party’s immovable property without her consent;

(c) she had no intention to dispose of the property;

(d) the matter was urgent because she had (apparently just) learnt that transfer was imminent.

2. Thereafter the Third Respondent (the conveyancer) delivered an answering affidavit.

3. In that affidavit the Third Respondent described that:

(a) she has been in continuous contact with the Applicant, in relation to the sale, since January 2009;

(b) at that stage, already, she had advised the Applicant of her rights and invited her to obtain an Attorney;

(c) pursuant thereto the Applicant intimated to her that she did not wish to frustrate the sale but that she was more concerned with payment of “her portion” of the proceeds;

(d) it appeared that the Applicant’s application was motivated by her desire to avoid the payment of transfer costs;

(e) on 24 January 2009 the Applicant, in fact, signed an affidavit in which she stated the following:

“I confirm having agreed to the sale of the immovable property described as Erf 103212 Verulam, registration division FU in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal situate at 129 Sunlark Drive, Dawncrest, Verulam. I further confirm that I have consented to the property being sold and the proceeds thereof, being deposited into an account opened in the name of J. Govinsamy - joint account held by J & R Govinsamy”.

4. When the matter came before me on 29 October 2009, the Third Respondent appeared in person, to abide my decision.

5. Since I had, by then, read the Third Respondent’s answering affidavit and because there was no appearance for the remaining Respondents, the matter was adjourned to 30 October 2009.

6. On that day Counsel informed me that the Applicant no longer persisted with the relief sought.

7. Because of my concern with the Applicant’s conduct, the application was adjourned to today, for me to consider the matter.

8. It is clear from the aforegoing that there is reason to believe that the Applicant might have failed to make an honest disclosure of the relevant circumstances relied upon, that she might have misled the Court about the urgency and that she might, even, have committed perjury in the course of the affidavit filed in support of the application.

9. In the circumstances and by reason of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to regulate it own procedure and prevent abuse thereof, I consider it necessary to give the Applicant opportunity to appear (in person or duly represented) or file an affidavit, should she be so advised, on 13 November 2009, to explain why the application should not be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (or his/her duly authorised representative) to consider whether or not the Applicant has committed perjury.

_________________________

MR ACTING JUSTICE MARAIS

4 NOVEMBER 2009

---