Hadebe v Rambau and Others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: EF Dippenaar J
• Judgment Date: 21 February 2022
• Docket Number: 2021/26962
• Hearing Date: 10 February 2022
• Court: Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg
• Citation: 2022 JDR 0480 (GJ)

Dippenaar J:

[1]

The applicant seeks orders: (i) cancelling a title deed T28373/2010, registered on 22 July 2010 in the name of the first and second respondents; (ii) directing the fourth respondent to cancel the said title deed and (iii) an order directing the sixth respondent to thereafter transfer the property Erf 1523, Moletsane Township, Soweto, ("the property") into the late estate of Lieketseng Alida Tlisane ("the deceased"), together with ancillary relief. The first and second respondents oppose the application. None of the other respondents participated in the proceedings.

[2]

The application concerns the applicant's claim to the property as last surviving child of the deceased, the erstwhile permit holder of the property, granted in July 1979. The deceased passed away on 24 August 1990. The facts span a period in excess of 40 years with many relevant events remaining unclear. The application involves certain Apartheid regulations pertaining to residential permits [1] and the Conversion of Certain Rights into Leasehold or Ownership Act [2] 81 of 1988 which empowers the Director General of the Department of Housing, the fourth respondent, to issue the right of

2022 JDR 0480 p3

Dippenaar J

ownership to permit holders to the land in townships. It also involves the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act [3] and the Gauteng Housing Act [4] .

[3]

In summary, the applicant's case is that the property was, unbeknownst to her and without her consent, transferred into the name of her deceased brother, Mr Thabo Hendrik Tlisane, who thereafter unlawfully disposed of the property without her consent in circumstances where they both held equal undivided shares in the property as beneficiaries of the deceased. On this basis, it is contended that the sale of the property was null and void and that the applicant is entitled to an order transferring the property into the estate of the deceased. Mr Thabo Hendrik Tlisane passed away on 12 December 2018. He had two sons who are not named and are not joined to these proceedings.

[4]

It appears that the property was transferred under T53646/2008 to Mr Thabo Hendrik Tsilane by the City of Johannesburg, the fifth respondent. The circumstances under which such transfer occurred are unclear. The property is presently registered in the name of the first and second respondents under title deed number T28373/2010. The first and second respondents purchased the property on 22 July 2010 from a Mr Amos Stephen Maluleke, who in turn purchased the property from Mr Thabo Hendrik Tlisane a day earlier on 21 July 2010. From the title deeds it appears that these transfers under T 28372/2010 and T28373/2010 were effected simultaneously.

[5]

The first and second respondents' case is that they are bona fide purchasers with unassailable title who purchased the property from Mr Maluleke pursuant to a valid contract of purchase with the assistance of an estate agent from Sethebi Realty and have lawfully owned and occupied the property since September 2010. A bond is registered over the property in an amount of R290 000 in favour of First National Bank Ltd, the third respondent. The sale agreements were not produced in evidence.

2022 JDR 0480 p4

Dippenaar J

[6]

The first and second respondents in addition: (i) challenged the applicant's locus standi as she failed to attach any documentary proof confirming her claim to be the daughter of the deceased and did not provide any proof that she is the executor to their respective estates; (ii) contended for material non joinders of Mr Maluleke and the sons of Hendrik Tlisane who have a material interest in the proceedings; (iii) characterise the application as a procedural and substantive folly, justifying the granting of a punitive costs order; (iv) claim the applicant's delay is inordinate, unreasonable and prejudicial and that her claim has prescribed.

[7]

There are numerous...