Nonkenge v Gwiji and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Pickering J
• Judgment Date: 04 June 1993
• Citation: 1993 (4) SA 393 (TK)
• Court: Transkei High Court

Pickering, J.:

On 28 February 1991 judgment by default in the sum of R8 F 318,26 was granted in the Magistrate's Court, Umtata under case No 1326/90 in favour of the Bank of Transkei (third respondent in this application) against Fikile Gwiji trading as Fiks Autorama Car Sales, Mr Gwiji being the first respondent herein. Pursuant to this judgment certain immovable property situate at John Beer Drive, Northcrest, Umtata, belonging to first respondent, was attached by virtue of a writ of execution dated 15 G March 1991. A sale in execution was held on 21 February 1992, at which sale the applicant, as the highest bidder, purchased the said property for the sum of R66 000. Thereafter applicant paid the said purchase price and obtained transfer of the property into his name on 23 October 1992.

H Despite such transfer of the property into applicant's name, first respondent refused to vacate the premises and applicant was obliged to institute proceedings for ejectment against him in the Supreme Court under case No 18/93. The application was granted but first respondent then successfully applied for a rescission of this judgment. He also launched an application for review of the proceedings in magistrate's court case No I 1326/90. In these review proceedings first respondent seeks an order that the judgment of the magistrate in Umtata magistrate's court case No 1326/90 be reviewed and set aside. He has cited as first respondent the magistrate, Umtata, and as second respondent the judgment creditor, namely the Bank of Transkei.

J Applicant now in turn seeks an order granting him leave, inter alia, to

Pickering J

A intervene as a respondent in the review proceedings instituted by first respondent, being case No 139/93. First respondent opposes this application on the ground that applicant has no direct or subtantial interest in the order which first respondent is seeking in case No 139/93. He avers that in the event of his review application being successful his intention is to institute proceedings to have the transfer of the property B to applicant set aside. In this eventuality, so he submits, applicant would then have a direct interest and would obviously be joined as a party to those proceedings.

In Aquatur (Pty) Ltd v Sacks and Others 1989 (1) SA 56 (A) the following was stated at 62A-F: C

'The principles applicable to joinder are well established and appear from decisions such as Amalgamated Engineering Union v...