About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAFSHC 59
|
|
Vermeulen N.O. v Rammile and Others (A260/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 59 (10 May 2018)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
FREE
STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Reportable:
NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES
Circulate
to Magistrates: NO
Case
No. : A260/2017
In
the matter between:-
ELIZABETH
VERMEULEN N.O
Appellant
(In
her capacity as executrix in the estate of the
late
Ramosioane Andrew Rammile, Estate number:2134/2001)
and
MPHO
MAGDELINE RAMMILE
1
st
Respondent
THE
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS BLOEMFONTEIN
2
nd
Respondent
THE
MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
3
rd
Respondent
THE
MEC FOR CO-OPERATIVE
GOVERNANCE
AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS,
FREE
STATE PROVINCE
4
th
Respondent
THE
MEC FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS,
FREE
STATE
PROVINCE
5
th
Respondent
THE
MASTER OF THE FREE STATE
HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
6
th
Respondent
CORAM:
DAFFUE, J
et
MBHELE,
J
et
VAN
RHYN,AJ
HEARD:
7 MAY 2018
JUDGMENT
BY
J
P DAFFUE
DELIVERED:
10
MAY 2018
I
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The daughter of a deceased person and only heir of his estate on the
one hand and the executrix of the deceased’s estate
on the
other hand are at loggerheads about the only asset in the estate, to
wit the daughter’s ancestral home which she occupies
and have
been occupying with her father (before his death) and siblings.
The executrix believed that she had the right to
sell the immovable
property, which she did, in order to obtain funds to make good the
alleged cash shortfall in the estate.
Her ultimate goal is to
transfer the property to the purchasers in order to wind up the
estate. The 1
st
respondent has a different approach
and consequently vehemently opposed the relief sought by appellant as
will be shown
infra.
The deceased passed on as long ago
as 7 July 2001 and due to several factors, not all relevant to this
appeal, his estate has still
not been finalised.
[2]
On 28 July 2016 appellant obtained
interim
relief
on an urgent and
ex
parte
basis
in terms whereof 1
st
respondent was prohibited from selling the immovable property
registered in her name pending the outcome of an application for
cancellation of the registration of the property in her name as well
as further relief set out in more detail
infra
.
[3]
On 22 September 2016 the matter was eventually heard by Ebrahim J on
an opposed basis. The learned judge discharged the
rule
nisi,
the
costs of the application to be paid by the appellant
de
bonis propriis.
No
reasons were provided and none were requested in terms of rule 49 of
the Uniform Rules of Court. The presiding judge’s
views
are to an extent evident from her reactions to the oral arguments and
questioning of counsel.
[4]
Appellant’s application for leave to appeal was considered by
Mhlambi J in the absence of Ebrahim J. On 18 July
2017 he
granted leave to appeal to the full bench.
II
THE PARTIES
[5]
Ms Elizabeth Vermeulen in her capacity as executrix in the estate
late Ramosioane Andrew Rammile is the appellant. She
was the
unsuccessful applicant in the court
a quo.
At all
relevant times she was an admitted attorney in the employ of Kramer
Weihmann and Joubert Attorneys (“KWJ”), Bloemfontein.
Adv W Groenewald appeared for her in this court as well as the court
a quo
.
[6]
Ms Mpho Magdaline Ramille is the 1
st
respondent in the appeal and she was also cited as such in the court
a quo.
She was
at all times represented by Adv L Mfazi. Her present attorney
is Mr V Morobane of Morobane Inc.
[7]
The Registrar of Deeds, the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (“the
Municipality”), the MEC for Co-operative Governance
and
Traditional Affairs, the MEC for Human Settlements and the Master of
the High Court were cited as 3
rd
to 6
th
respondents respectively, but they did not oppose the application and
did not play any role in the hearing before the court
a
quo
or
on appeal.
III
A
CONCISE HISTORY OF RELEVANT EVENTS
[8]
The following facts are either common cause or could not be disputed
by appellant:
8.1
1
st
respondent and her siblings together with their father stayed at Erf
[...], Mangaung (Extension 6), district Bloemfontein
(“the
property”). As a consequence of marriage and
employment her siblings moved out of the ancestral house
and
eventually only she and one brother, Patric, were left behind;
8.2
After Patric’s death in 1998, her father consulted an attorney,
Mr A C Horn, who prepared a will which her father
signed and executed
on 4 March 1998;
8.3
1
st
respondent’s father married again and relocated
to his new wife’s home in Thaba Nchu, she being Morakane
Jeaneatt Rammile
(“the surviving spouse”);
8.4
During her father’s lifetime 1
st
respondent effected several improvements to the property, including
the building of a toilet and bathroom, insofar as she knew
that she
would inherit the property;
8.5
1
st
respondent’s father (herein later to be referred to as “the
deceased”) passed away on 7 July 2001 where after
Letters of
Authority were issued by the Master to Mr A C Horn, the
attorney appointed in the will of the deceased; Mr Horn
was appointed
as the Master’s representative in the joint estate of the
deceased and his surviving spouse with whom he was
married in
community of property, the legal consequences of which were that the
surviving spouse became entitled to one half share
of the estate (the
property herein);
8.6
1
st
respondent and Mr Horn approached officials of the 3
rd
respondent on his advice, but Mr Horn passed away hereafter;
8.7
KWJ took over the estate file and 1
st
respondent provided a written special power of attorney during March
2007; firstly Ms De Villiers of the firm handled the affairs
and
thereafter the appellant;
8.8
Letters of Authority in terms of
s 18(3)
of the
Administration of
Estates Act, 66 of 1965
were initially issued to 1
st
respondent on 3 March 2008 and on 10 September 2008 Letters of
Executorship were issued to her;
8.9
After some negotiations between the attorneys for 1
st
respondent and the surviving spouse a Deed of Sale was concluded on
26 September 2008 in terms whereof 1
st
respondent purchased the surviving spouse’s one half undivided
share in the property for R90 000.00;
8.10
This transaction, which was subject to the suspensive condition that
a loan be granted to the purchaser, was not proceeded
with although
it appears from an internal note dated 26 August 2011 –
some three years later - relied on by appellant,
that the loan was
indeed granted, but 1
st
respondent failed to sign the mortgage bond documents;
8.11
Prior to the sale mentioned
infra
1
st
respondent instructed Kolokome and partners – clearly not
attorneys – to communicate with appellant as there were
indications that she was not satisfied with the intended sale;
however Mr Kolokome indicated in writing that his client decided
not
to contest the sale, an aspect disputed by 1
st
respondent;
8.12
During 2012 several letters were sent to and fro between KWJ and
Majola Attorneys now acting for 1
st
respondent, indicating clearly that 1
st
respondent in her capacity as executrix had terminated the mandate of
KWJ to act on her behalf – this also appears from the
written
termination of mandate of July 2012;
8.13
Meanwhile, on 25 April 2012, the property was sold for the amount of
R284 070.00 to Mr and Mrs Serengoane on instructions
of
appellant; the sale taking place presumably in terms of
s 47
of the
Administration of Estates Act, 66 of 1965
, but it is doubtful if
there was compliance with the provisions of the section, an aspect to
be dealt with briefly
infra;
8.14
1
st
respondent’s refusal to sign the transfer documents led to a
complaint by appellant to the Master who directed 1
st
respondent to sign the required documents;
8.15
1
st
respondent’s failure to comply apparently caused the Master to
remove her as executrix – there is no proof hereof or
that she
could have become aware thereof prior to institution of the
application, but it is evident that appellant was appointed
as
executrix on 24 October 2013;
8.16
On 7 August 2014 appellant entered into a Deed of Sale with the
Municipality in terms whereof she in her capacity as executrix
purchased the property for the amount of R10 146.00, apparently
in terms of a decision taken on 12 September 2012, but her
counsel
could not tell us who negotiated the alleged purchase price; steps
were taken by the Municipality’s attorneys to
transfer the
property in the names of the deceased estate and surviving spouse;
8.17
Simultaneously with the above intended transfer appellant, through
the conveyancing department of KWJ tried to effect transfer
of the
property in the names of Mr and Mrs Serengoane, only to discover that
the property was already transferred in the name of
1
st
respondent;
8.18
It appeared from an investigation undertaken on behalf of appellant
that the property was transferred on 26 February 2016 to
1
st
respondent in terms of a declaration made by the Director-General of
the Free State Province in terms of
s 4(1)(b)
of the Conversion of
Certain Rights into Leasehold or Ownership Act, 81 of 1988 (“the
Conversion Act”);
8.19
KWJ’s investigation confirmed that the Director-General and/or
his personnel were
inter
alia
in
possession of the deceased’s death certificate, his will,
Letters of Executorship in favour of 1
st
respondent, as well as her identity document and her affidavit;
8.20
I would have expected the Municipality and the Departments of
Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Human Settlements
to explain their intimate knowledge of events leading to the transfer
of the property to 1
st
respondent, but there was a deafening silence from them.
IV
THE RELIEF SOUGHT
IN THE COURT
A
QUO
[9]
Save for the
interim
relief sought and obtained as mentioned
supra,
appellant
sought cancellation of registration of the property, to wit Erf [...]
(Mangaung (Extension 6), district Bloemfontein,
in the name of 1
st
respondent as well as an order that the 2
nd
respondent, the Registrar of Deeds, be authorised to transfer the
property to the Estate late Ramosioane Andrew Rammile and surviving
spouse, Morakane Jeaneatt Rammile, alternatively to the
Municipality. A punitive costs order was also sought.
[10]
As stated
supra
the
application was eventually dismissed, although leave to appeal was
granted.
V
THE
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
[11]
Appellant relies on mainly five grounds of appeal, to wit that the
court
a quo
erred (a) in not taking into consideration
that 1
st
respondent was not entitled to obtain transfer of
the property into her name; (b) in not taking into consideration that
1
st
respondent was no longer an executrix of her father’s
estate, presumably at the stage when the property was transferred
into
her name, as she was substituted by appellant; (c) in not taking
into account that the Deed of Sale between 1
st
respondent
and the surviving spouse lapsed as the suspensive condition was not
fulfilled; (d) in not taking into consideration
that 1
st
respondent – even on her version – does not know how she
obtained full ownership and (e) in granting a punitive costs
order
de
bonis propriis
against appellant.
VI
EVALUATION
OF THE ARGUMENTS
1
st
,
2
nd
and 4
th
grounds of appeal
[12]
These three grounds as summarised
supra
will
be dealt with simultaneously. It needs to be established
whether the court
a
quo
was
wrong in failing to find that 1st respondent was not entitled to
transfer of the property in her name. I wish to emphasise
that
Mr Groenewald steered away in his heads of argument as well as his
oral submissions from the underlying and relevant principles
and
procedures of the Conversion Act. However, he submitted that
the crux of the appeal was whether the property was rightfully
transferred to 1st respondent.
[13]
I mentioned certain relevant conveyancing principles in
M.J. v M.V
Moloao,
case no 4027/2016
,
an unreported judgment of the
Free State High Court, delivered on 30 November 2017 and for ease of
reference I quote the relevant
passages:
“
[18]
There must be a causa for registration of immovable property into the
transferee’s name. It may inter alia
be a sale, a
donation, an exchange, an inheritance or in terms of legislation.
[19]
During the years of apartheid black people could not own immovable
property in the majority of areas in South Africa
which areas were
reserved for people of the so-called white group only. However,
urban black people were under certain conditions
given the right to
occupy land in areas allocated to them. They received so-called
site permits.
[20]
Since 1984 black people could receive leasehold rights in respect of
properties occupied by them in urban areas. Leasehold
rights were
granted to occupants in possession of site permits issued to them.
I refer to the Black Communities Development
Act, 62 of 1984.
This Act was amended by Act 4 of 1986 to provide for full ownership
rights. Applicant has not made
out a case as to which
legislation applies in casu and for that reason I have decided to
mention Acts which might be applicable.
[21]
On 1 January 1989 the Conversion of Certain Rights into Leasehold or
Ownership Act, 81 of 1988 (“the Conversion
Act”) was
promulgated to provide for the conversion of certain rights of
occupation into leasehold or ownership. I do not
intend to discuss
the Act in any detail, but wish to reiterate the following. The
legislature regarded the Black Communities
Development Act as the
principal Act for purposes of interpreting and applying the
Conversion Act. In terms of s 2(1) of
the Conversion Act the
Director-General of a particular province shall conduct inquiries in
respect of affected sites within that
province in order to determine
who shall be granted rights of leasehold, or where sites are situated
in formalised townships for
which township registers have been
opened, ownership with regard to such sites.
[22]
In terms of s 5, and in the event of a declaration having been made
by the Director-General, he/she shall lodge such
declaration and
every deed and other document necessary for registration of the right
of leasehold if s 4(1)(a) is applicable.
If s 4(1)(b) applies,
the Director-General shall lodge his/her declaration and a deed of
transfer with the registrar concerned.
It is interesting to
note that s 17(1) and (2) of the Deeds Registry Act, 47 of 1937 (“the
Deeds Act”) shall not apply
in respect of transfer of ownership
in terms of the Conversion Act. See: s 5(1A)(g). I shall
explain the effect of
s 17 of the Deeds Act infra. It also
appears as if s 14 of the Deeds Act mentioned infra may also not be
applicable if s
2(3) of the Conversion Act is correctly understood.
The provincial administrations must carry out the processes contained
in the Conversion Act. However, it is not necessary to decide
the issue in the light of the evidence and submissions presented
to
the court.
[23]
........
[24]
........
[25]
Registration of immovable property which would upon transfer thereof
form part of a joint estate shall be registered in the
name of the
husband and the wife, unless that transfer takes place only in the
name of a partnership and the husband or wife is
involved herein only
in the capacity of partner in that partnership. See s 17 of the
Deeds Act. Section 14 of the Deeds
Act provides for deeds to
follow the sequence of their relative causes. This means that
transfer of land shall follow the
sequence of the successive
transactions in pursuance of which they are made, save in certain
exceptional cases......... Sections
14 and 17 must be regarded
as the default position, but as mentioned supra, the Conversion Act
apparently provides for exceptions.”
[14]
Although appellant attached Deed of Transfer no TE 2539/2016 in
favour of 1
st
respondent to her founding affidavit, she
did not mention the Conversion Act in her affidavit and did not alert
the urgent court
which she approached
ex parte
that this was
not the usual transfer between private persons or between corporate
bodies or the State and private persons.
The transfer was
effected in terms of a particular Act, the Conversion Act and it
followed, not upon a sale, exchange, donation
or inheritance (in the
usual sense) which would have triggered for example s 14 of the Deeds
Act, but a declaration by the Director-General
in terms of s 4(1)(b)
of the Conversion Act. If this was dealt with in the founding
affidavit, the urgent court would have
been alerted to the fact that
the Conversion Act provides for an appeal procedure and most probably
would not have granted relief
in the first place.
[15]
Contrary to her version Mr Groenewald argued that 1
st
respondent fraudulently arranged with the Departments of Co-operative
Governance and Traditional Leaders and Human Settlements
to have the
property transferred into her name only, whilst she at all times
accepted that she was entitled to transfer of one
half undivided
share in terms of the will. On the information obtained it
appears as if she went to the Departments as late
as 2015 and after
the appointment of appellant as executrix. He also relied upon
the fact that on her own version she never
had the intention to
become owner of the whole property. Therefore, based on the
abstract theory of transfer confirmed in
judgments of the Supreme
Court of Appeal such as
Legator
McKenna v Shea
2010(1) SA 35 (SCA) at 44F and
Quartermark
Investments v Mkhwanazi
2014 (3) SA 96
(SCA) at para [24], no real agreement existed and the
transfer should be declared a nullity and cancelled.
[16]
I doubt whether the established principles stated in
Legator
and
Quartermark
can be applied
in
casu.
We
are not dealing with transfer of ownership in immovable property in
the general sense of the word.
In
casu
there
is no underlying agreement, but a declaration by a senior official in
the Free State Province – its Director-General
– granting
ownership to 1
st
respondent. The Conversion Act cannot be sidestepped in the
process of adjudicating the appellant’s alleged right to
cancellation of the Deed of Transfer. The signing of the Deed
of Transfer was done by Mr Van Niekerk, an employee in the
office of
the particular Departments following a declaration by the
Director-General. A process was followed in accordance
with the
Conversion Act and to name one aspect, the documents were not and did
not have to be prepared by a conveyancer as is the
case with other
documents filed for registration in the Deeds Registry. See
also:
Kuzwayo
v Estate late Masilela
(28/10)
[2010] ZASCA 167
(1 December 2010) at paragraph [28].
[17]
Mr Mfazi argued that the principle set out in
Schlessinger
v Schlessinger
1979
(4) SA 342(W)
at 348E – 349B is relevant. Appellant had a
duty of good faith to disclose all facts which might, not necessarily
would,
affect the court’s discretion whether or not to grant
relief. He argued that Ebrahim J who eventually
discharged
the rule
nisi
upheld
the Constitution and particularly s 25(1) thereof dealing with the
right to property. This appears from her questions
and remarks
during argument. She
inter
alia
alluded
to the following pertaining to 1
st
respondent’s version:
”…
..
my ancestral home…., this is where my father did all his
customary and spiritual rituals ceremonies and I want to safeguard
this property…..”
Mr
Mfazi is correct that the rule
nisi
could
and possibly should have been discharged solely because appellant
failed to present all relevant facts to the urgent court.
[18]
I am of the view that appellant has failed to make out a case based
on the merits. The Director-General did not file
an affidavit
and as appellant elected not to launch a review application, this
court does not know what were the reasons for the
declaration in
terms of s 4(1)(b) of the Conversion Act. See again
Kuzwayo
supra
at paragraph [30]
.
In any event, the
Conversion Act makes provision for an appeal procedure and that being
the case, appellant who presented her case
based on interdict
procedure, failed to show that she did not have any other
satisfactory remedy. Mr Van Niekerk, who signed
the Deed of
Transfer on behalf of the aforesaid Departments, duly authorised in
terms of a Delegation of Ministerial Powers, acting
on behalf of the
Municipality as is recorded in the first preamble of the Deed of
Transfer, advised KWJ that the complaint would
be referred to his
legal department. Appellant was not prepared to follow that
sensible route.
[19]
An issue is made that 1
st
respondent failed to inform the authorities that she was not an
executrix of the estate in 2015 when she allegedly influenced the
Departments to transfer the property in her name. Firstly,
there is no proof that she knew by then that she had been substituted
by appellant and secondly, her position of executrix was on
probabilities immaterial to the granting of ownership to her.
The deceased was entitled to ownership in terms of the Conversion
Act, but his death made transfer to his estate unnecessary and
consequently a direct transfer to the deceased’s heir, the 1
st
respondent, was in principle authorised in accordance with s 2(3)(b)
of the Conversion Act. I reiterate that as a result
of s
5(1A)(g) of the Conversion Act ss 17(1) and (2) of the Deeds Act do
not apply as mentioned
supra;
therefore
transfer to the deceased’s estate and his surviving spouse was
not required unlike what the case would be in the
default position.
[20]
Mr Groenewald was not aware of the
Moloao
decision
of the Free State Court and did not study the decision of the Supreme
Court of Appeal in
Kuzwayo
supra
.
If he was aware of these judgments and took proper cognisance of the
Conversion Act, he would probably not be inclined to
argue that the
Deed of Transfer no TE 2539/2016 in favour of 1
st
respondent should be cancelled. He submitted repeatedly that
the court should go further and order the
“
retransfer”
of the property. It
must be emphasised that this is not a review application and that we
were not provided with reasons for
the Director-General’s
declaration.
[21]
The court is entitled to cancel a Deed of Transfer as provided for in
s 6(1)
of the
Deeds Registries Act, 47 of 1937
– see also
Kuzwayo
supra,
but
s 6(2)
provides that upon such cancellation
“
the
deed under which the land …. was held immediately prior to the
registration of the deed which is cancelled, shall be
revived to the
extent of such cancellation, and the registrar shall cancel the
relevant endorsement thereon evidencing the registration
of the
cancelled deed.”
No
“
retransfer”
takes place and the
property can also not be transferred to a third party as appellant
intended
ex
facie
the notice of motion and the rule
nisi
issued.
In terms hereof appellant only asked in the alternative that the
property be transferred to the Municipality.
[22]
My evaluation
supra
must
lead to the conclusion that appellant’s grounds of appeal have
no merit. I also wish to add that I find it unbelievable
that
appellant could have proceeded with her action over all these years,
well-knowing that a conflict of interest existed from
as early as at
least the beginning of 2012. The mere fact that 1st respondent
consulted another person and indicated her
unwillingness to proceed
with the public auction of the property should have caused appellant
to see the flashing red lights.
There is no indication that 1st
respondent as the only heir (and executrix at the time) approved the
intended sale in writing as
required by
s 47
of the
Administration of
Estates Act, 66 of 1965
. In any event, the written termination
of mandate followed soon after the auction was held.
3rd
ground of appeal – suspensive condition in Deed of Sale not met
[23]
Mr Groenewald conceded that this is really a non-issue at this stage
of the proceedings. Not much time will be spent
on the subject
and I merely wish to make it clear that it is not a foregone
conclusion that the Deed of Sale between 1st respondent
and the
surviving spouse has lapsed as a result of the non-fulfilment of the
suspensive condition. The law is clear as mentioned
by Christie
and Bradfield,
Christie’s
The Law of Contract in South Africa,
at
p 151 and further. Non-fulfilment of a suspensive condition
normally
renders the contract void. However the wording of the particular
contract must be considered and properly interpreted to establish
whether the non-compliance in a particular case warrants the lapsing
of the contract.
In
casu
the
wording of the contract is such that there is room for an argument
that it was not the parties’ intention that the contract
would
lapse if no loan was obtained within a specific time frame.
Most importantly it appears from an internal memorandum
relied upon
by appellant that a loan was indeed granted to 1st respondent in
order to fulfil the suspensive condition, but that
she merely failed
to sign the bond documents. The surviving spouse has an
option, either to keep 1st respondent to
the contract, or to cancel
it, but proper notice must be given in terms of the contract.
Nothing has been done in this regard
ex
facie
the
documents before us and therefore the contract appears to be
in
esse
,
but it is not necessary to make a finding in this regard.
The appeal against the
punitive costs order
[24]
Appellant had no other option than to withdraw from the matter and
claim her fees and expenses, but what she could not do was
to press
on and eventually arrange for her appointment as executrix in
substitution of 1st appellant. Appellant’s recalcitrant
attitude, although to an extent understood if one considers the
extreme delay to finalise the estate, deserves to be penalised
with a
punitive costs order. She and KWJ should have adhered to the
termination of mandate and she should not have made herself
available
as executrix, well-knowing that a serious conflict of interest
existed. In the process much unnecessary costs have
been
incurred and neither the estate (to the disadvantage of the surviving
spouse also), nor 1st respondent should be penalised.
The only
manner in which this can be avoided is to dismiss the appeal against
the punitive costs order against appellant personally.
I have
considered the fact that appellant was not warned that a punitive
costs order might be sought or granted against her.
Costs are
in the discretion of the court hearing a matter and as long as the
discretion is exercised on grounds upon which a reasonable
person
could come to the decision arrived at, no interference should take
place on appeal. The allegation that the property
had to be
sold on auction because of a cash shortage is without merit.
The obvious route to follow if the sale between 1st
respondent and
the surviving spouse could not be finalised was to transfer the
property into both their names. The costs
would be minute at
such stage. This exercise was apparently never considered. The
costs caused by the auction could have
been avoided. 1st
respondent should never have been put in a situation where she would
have lost her ancestral home to which
she personally effected
improvements. Appellant acted pitiless and grossly
unreasonable. She was rightly ordered to
pay the costs
de
bonis propriis.
VII
CONCLUSION
[25]
Consequently the appeal has no merits and it should be dismissed with
costs.
VIII
ORDER
[26]
The following order is issued:
The
appeal is dismissed with costs.
____________
J.
P. DAFFUE, J
I concur
____________
MBHELE, J
I concur
___________
Van Rhyn, AJ
On
behalf of appellant:
Adv
W J Groenewald
Instructed by:
Kramer Weihmann &
Joubert
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the 1
st
respondent: Adv L Mfazi
Instructed by:
Morobane Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN