Menqa v Markom

Last updated

Menqa and Another v Markom and Others [1] is an important case in South African property law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) [2] on 5 November 2007, with judgment handed down on 30 November.

Contents

Facts

Pursuant to a default judgment against Markom, the first respondent, his residential property was sold in execution to Menqa, the first appellant (who subsequently sold it to the second appellant). The warrant of execution had been issued by the clerk of the magistrates' court without judicial supervision, but prior to the ruling in Jaftha v Schoeman; Van Rooyen v Stoltz , [3] wherein the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the relevant provision in the Magistrates' Courts Act [4] [5] and ordered its amendment.

Menqa, therefore, had acted in good faith, having not knowledge at the time of the defect in the warrant. In the Cape Provincial Division, however, Zondi AJ held that the sale in execution, along with all subsequent sales, was nonetheless null and void, since it might compromise Markom's right in the Constitution of access to adequate housing. [6] Jaftha was therefore applied retrospectively, and the court a quo directed the Registrar of Deeds to reregister Markom as owner of the property.

Judgment

On appeal, the SCA agreed that sales in execution of immovable property, as well as all subsequent sales, were invalid if the warrant of execution had been issued by the magistrates' clerk without judicial supervision. The absence of this procedural safeguard would imperil a party's constitutional rights, [7] even if the warrant was issued before Jaftha, and could not be saved by an application of the Magistrates' Courts Act. [8]

The court also held that, if a sale in execution was null and void because it violated the principle of legality, the sheriff had no authority to transfer ownership to the purchaser, who would therefore not acquire ownership, despite registration of the property in his or her name. On the facts, Markom was theoretically entitled to recover the property in vindicatory proceedings. [9]

The court held further, on the facts, that directing the Registrar of Deeds to reregister the property in Markom's name would not take into account

The decision of the court a quo was thus confirmed in part and reversed in part.

In a concurring judgment, Cloete JA found that, at common law, a sale in execution was void for want of compliance with an essential formality, but that non-compliance with non-essential formalities did not have this result. His view was that section 70 of the Magistrates' Courts Act should be interpreted as being to the same effect as the common law, except that a sale in execution in a magistrates' court could be impugned even for want of non-essential formalities where the purchaser did not act in good faith or had notice of the non-compliance. Furthermore, section 70 should not be interpreted as protecting a sale which is void, as this conflicts with the basic principle of legality, as well as the Constitution. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary management relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Saunderson and Others is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Howie P, Cameron JA, Nugent JA, Jafta JA and Mlambo JA on 23 November 2005, with judgment handed down on 15 December.

Gundwana v Steko Development and Others is an important case in South African property law, heard before the Constitutional Court on 10 February 2011.

Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on May 23, 2002, with judgment handed down on August 30.

<i>Breskvar v Wall</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Breskvar v Wall, was an Australian court case, decided in the High Court on 13 December 1971. The case was an influential decision in property law, specifically the effect of obtaining title by registration under the Torrens title system, the application of the fraud exception to the principle of indefeasibility and whether Frazer v Walker  should be followed in Australia. The High Court followed Frazer v Walker in upholding that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the fraud obtained an effective title even though the person they purchased from was registered by fraud against the original owner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African criminal law</span> Law relating to crime

South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.

True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Mahdi and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 28 August 2008, with judgment handed down on 3 March 2009. PM Kennedy SC appeared for the appellant. There was no appearance for the first respondent, while AE Franklin SC appeared for the second respondent and PJ Olsen SC for the amicus curiae.

Ponelat v Schrepfer is an important recent case in South African law, with ramifications particularly in the area of universal partnerships, in which the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed an appeal against an order of the Eastern Circuit Local Division High Court.

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.

Theart and Another v Minnaar NO; Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, as well as in the area of legal interpretation. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 5, 2009, with judgment handed down on December 3. Mpati P, Brand JA, Snyders JA, Malan JA and Bosielo JA presided. Counsel for the appellants was BC Wharton; CHJ Maree appeared for the respondent in case No. 483/08 and M. Verster for the respondent in case No. 007/09. These were appeals from two decisions in the High Court, Cape Town. The appellants' attorneys were RP Totos, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 483/08 were Van der Spuy & Vennote, Cape Town, and Phatshoane Henney Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 007/09 were JC Van der Berg Attorneys, George, and Hill, McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein.

The South African law of sale is an area of the legal system in that country that describes rules applicable to a contract of sale, generally described as a contract whereby one person agrees to deliver to another the free possession of a thing in return for a price in money.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on February 27, 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Ponnan JA and Mhlantla AJA presided. Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the full bench in the Cape Provincial Division regarding spoliation.

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others is an important case in South African law, in particular in the area of civil procedure, with its determination that the execution of immovable property is subject to judicial oversight.

The South African law of lease is an area of the legal system in South Africa which describes the rules applicable to a contract of lease. This is broadly defined as a synallagmatic contract between two parties, the lessor and the lessee, in terms of which one, the lessor, binds himself to give the other, the lessee, the temporary use and enjoyment of a thing, in whole or in part, or of his services or those of another person; the lessee, meanwhile, binds himself to pay a sum of money as compensation, or rent, for that use and enjoyment. The law of lease is often discussed as a counterpart to the law of sale.

Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.

References

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 2008 (2) SA 120 (SCA).
  2. ↑ Scott JA, Cloete JA, Van Heerden JA, Jafta JA and Kgomo AJA.
  3. ↑ 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC).
  4. ↑ Act 32 of 1944.
  5. ↑ s 66(1)(a).
  6. ↑ s 26(1).
  7. ↑ s 26(1).
  8. ↑ s 70.
  9. ↑ 129G-130D.
  10. ↑ 130E.
  11. ↑ s 25.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.