About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 234
|
|
Van Ommen v Sheriff of the High Court and Another (54129/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 234 (12 April 2021)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO
.
54129/2020
In
the matter between:-
JAN
VAN
OMMEN
APPLICANT
and
SHERIFF
OF THE HIGH COURT,
BRONKHORSTSPRUIT
1
ST
RESPONDENT
MARIA
GEZINA VAN OMMEN (born LAMAKER)
2
ND
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
VORSTER,
LI AJ:-
1.
The Applicant approaches the Court on a basis of urgency and claims
the following relief:-
"(2)
That the First Respondent
be directed
to sign
all documents
on behalf of
the
Second
Respondent to
effect
transfer of
the
property
known as Portion 21 of the Farm No 369
,
Boschkop
,
Pretoria
,
Gauteng
Province
."
2.
The Applicant
tenders
to
pay the
costs
of the
application
himself
,
save
if the
application
is opposed,
in which
case he claims that
the Second
3.
Respondent pays the costs.
4.
Urgency is in
dispute.
5.
The Applicant
and
the
Second
Respondent were
married
to
each
other,
but
divorced
in the
Netherland
s
.
The
property
in question
is possessed
by them
in undivided
half shares
.
A settlement
agreement was
entered
into
between
the
parties at the time of
t
he
divorce. That
settlement agreement provided for
the sale of the
property within
3 months by the
Applicant
and
payment to the Second Respondent
of
an
amount
which at
that
stage
was
agree
d
.
The settlement
agreement also provided that
,
should the property not be
sold and
transferred
within
the
3
month
period,
and
it
proved
to
be difficult
or impossible to
sell it, a process will be followed
in terms
of
RE/MAX
lnfoglobe by means
of a process referred to in clause
1.5 of the
settlement
agreement.
That provided
for
the
marketing
and
disposal of
the
property
through
the agency of
RE/MAX.
6.
The point is that the settlement agreement provides for the method to
dispose of
the
joint immovable
property
and
payment
of
the
value
of
the
requisite shares
in the
property.
The Applicant
alleges that
his health is poor
and that that is
a
reason
why
the matter is
urgent
to be
disposed of
.
I
am not
impressed
by
that
argument. The
process
of
battling
over
the
property
in question
comes
for
several
years
and
cannot
be
said
to
be
urgent
at
this stage when it
was never resolved over a lengthy period of time.
7.
In the result of the aforegoing,
I
am not persuaded
that the matter is urgent to be
heard
as
an
urgent
matter
disregarding
the
usual
rules
of
procedure
and the order that I
make is the
application
is
struck from the roll with costs.
L
I VORSTER, AJ
12
April 2021
Counsel:
Applicant J
B
Cilliers
2nd
Respindent
N.
Terblanche