Finnemore and Another v Finnemore and Another (2032/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 57 (17 June 2005)

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
>>
2005
>>
[2005] ZAFSHC 57
|

|

Finnemore and Another v Finnemore and Another (2032/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 57 (17 June 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Application No. :
2032/2005
In
the application between:
ELLEN-ANN
FINNEMORE
First
Applicant
ELLEN-ANN
FINNEMORE N.O.
Second
Applicant
and
DUDLEY
ARTHUR FINNEMORE
First
Respondent
(in
his personal capacity)
DUDLEY
ARTHUR FINNEMORE N.O.
Second
Respondent
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
MALHERBE
JP
_____________________________________________________
HEARD
ON:
9
JUNE 2005
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
17
JUNE 2005
_____________________________________________________
First applicant and first
respondent (to whom I shall simply refer as applicant and respondent
respectively) are the children of the
late Mrs. Jacoba Cornelia
Finnemore. They have been involved in litigation in this Court for
some time. The bone of contention
between them is an immovable
property in Bloemfontein. On 3 February 2005 their settlement
agreement was made an order of Court.
Paragraph 10 of this agreement
provides as follows:
“
10. Hangende
die afhandeling van hierdie skikking onderneem
Ellen-Ann
Finnemore
in haar
persoonlike hoedanigheid en amptelike hoedanigheid as Eksekutrise in
die boedel van wyle
Jacoba
Cornelia Finnemore
om geen
aksie te neem om die betrokke eiendom te vervreem en/of met ‘n
verband te beswaar nie anders as om ‘n lening te verkry
sodat sy
die betalings waarna in 8 hierbo verwys word kan doen. Die Fin Prop
Trust en
Dudley Arthur
Finnemore
sal die nodige
samewerking (indien nodig) en toegang tot die eiendom verleen sodat
Ellen-Ann Finnemore
‘n verband vir doeleindes van die maak van die betalings waarna in
8 hierbo verwys word, kan verkry.”
On 18 May 2005 applicant
obtained the following order by default, despite service of the
application upon respondent:
“
1. This
application is heard on an urgent basis.
2. A
Rule
nisi
is issued calling upon
the first respondent and second respondent to appear before this
Honourable Court on the 26
th
day of May 2005 at 09h30 so soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard to furnish reasons why the following order should not be made
a
final order of this Honourable Court:
3.1 that a valuator, to be appointed
by First National Bank, be allowed to enter the property, and
dwelling and or other building,
situated at Erf 17, Pentagon Park,
more commonly known as 97 Gascony Crescent, Pentagon Park,
Bloemfontein, during business hours,
for the purpose of valuating the
said property.
3.2 that
a valuator, to be appointed by Nedbank Limited, be allowed to enter
the property, any dwelling and or other building, situated
at Erf 17,
Pentagon park, more commonly known as 97 Gascony Crescent, Pentagon
park, Bloemfontein, during business hours, for the
purpose of
valuating the said property.
3.3 that, in the event that the
aforesaid valuators are refused entrance notwithstanding the
provisions of this order, the Sheriff
of this Honourable Court or his
deputy, may take all reasonable steps to ensure that entrance is
obtained and a valuation is completed.
3.4 that
the costs of this application, including costs relating to all
attendances as from 3 February 2005, be awarded in favour
of the
applicants against both respondents, jointly and severally, the one
to pay the other to be absolved, on a scale as between
attorney and
client.”
This is the extended
return date of that order.
It
is applicant’s case that respondent frustrated her attempts to
obtain valuations of the property with a view to register a bond
in
terms of clause 10 of their settlement agreement, by denying access
to the property by valuators. In this regard she says the
following
in her founding affidavit:
“
10. Unfortunately,
a bank valuator of Nedbank Limited was refused entrance and, on the
8
th
of February 2005
my
attorney of record forwarded an urgent facsimile to First Respondent
and Second Respondent’s attorneys of record, a copy of
which is
attached as annexure
“EAF4”
.
On the
29
th
of March 2005
a facsimile
was received from First Respondent and Second Respondent’s
attorneys of record, confirming that a bank valuator was
to be
afforded permission to enter the property. A copy of the facsimile
so received, is attached as annexure
“EAF5”
.
11. Notwithstanding, the First
Respondent had yet again refused entrance to the property, resulting
in a further facsimile, dated
19
April 2005
, forwarded to
his attorneys of record, a copy of which is attached hereto as
annexure
“EAF6”
.”
I quote from the letter
EAF4:
“
Intussen,
en op die veronderstelling dat onderverdeling van die eiendom nie kan
plaasvind nie, het ons kliënt aansoek gedoen om ‘n
verbandlening.
Hierdie aansoek is in die proses van goedkeuring, maar soos u weet,
moet die betrokke finansiële instansie toegang
tot die eiendom bekom
vir waardasie doeleindes. Binne die volgende week of wat, sal ‘n
amptenaar van sodanige finansiële instansie
dus sy opwagting by die
eiendom maak. Dit is in iedergeval in ooreenstemming met die inhoud
van klousule 10 tot die Skikkingsakte
en vertrou ons derhalwe dat u
kliënt sy samewerking sal gee.
Ons kliënt sal egter uit die
aard van die saak eers die verband registreer na 30 April 2005, sou
dit blyk dat die eiendom nie onderverdeel
kan word nie. Die verband
sal dus nie voor die tyd geregistreer word nie. U kliënt sal
waardering hê vir die feit dat die aansoekprosedure
wat registrasie
van die verband voorafgaan, reeds nou afgehandel moet word, ten einde
te verseker dat dit geregistreer kan word na
30 April 2005, maar voor
1 Junie 2005, wanneer u kliënt die balans van R300 000,00 moet
ontvang. Kommunikeer asseblief hierdie
toedrag van sake aan u
kliënt, sodat die bankamptenaar nie weggewys word wanneer hy sy
opwagting by die eiendom maak nie.
”
The relevant portion of
EAF5 reads as follows:
“
Die
telefoniese gesprek tussen die skrywer hiervan en u Mnr le Roux
vanoggend verwys. Ons bevestig dat ons kliënt toestem dat ‘n
waardeerder intussen die eiendom waardeer vir doeleindes van ‘n
lening.
Kliënt oorweeg intussen sy opsies
rondom die onderverdeling van die erf. U kliënt moet onder geen
omstandighede voortgaan met die
registrasie
van die verband nie.”
Applicant’s complaint
was once again communicated to respondent’s attorneys by means of
EAF6. I quote the relevant paragraphs:
“
Soos
bespreek, het u kliënt ongelukkig weereens toegang geweier tot die
perseel en kon geen van die bankwaardeerders dus die eiendom
binnegaan met die oog daarop om dit te waardeer nie. U Mnr van
Biljon het dan ook te kenne gegee dat u kliënt se optrede vreemd
is,
aangesien dit in teenstelling was met sy instruksies. Die
de
facto
situasie is dat u
kliënt egter volhard en toegang weier.
Ons
plaas ook op rekord dat daar nog geen sinvolle vorderingsverslag van
u kliënt ontvang is aangaande die gepoogde onderverdeling
van die
eiendom nie. Ons kliënt bevestig dan ook dat sy telefoniese met die
kantoor van die Landmeter Generaal, sowel as die Munisipaliteit
in
verbinding was, wie bevestig het dat geen aansoek om onderverdeling
al ontvang is nie. Hoe be-oog u kliënt om binne 8 werksdae
‘n
aansoek van die aard deur te kry?
Soos u weet, korrespondeer ons reeds
8
Februarie 2005
met u
kantore, asook die van Bezuidenhouts Ingelyf om die toegang deur
bankwaardeerders tot die perseel te fasiliteer, steur u kliënt
hom
glad nie daaraan nie en was hy deurgaans in flagrante minagting van
die Hof. Onder die omstandighede, plaas ons dus op rekord
dat ons
vanmiddag nog ‘n brevet aan Adv. de Villiers oorhandig met
instruksies om ‘n dringende Hofaansoek op te stel, sodat toegang
tot die perseel verkry kan word. In die verband, gaan ons aansoek
doen om ‘n Hofbevel, ingevolge waarvan u kliënt, op ‘n
prokureur-en-kliënt
skaal, sal betaal vir ons kliënt se koste
aangegaan sedert
8 Februarie
2005
. Ons sal dus die hof
versoek om u kliënt te gelas om al die koste te betaal wat verband
gehou het met alle opwagtings sedert voormelde
datum.
U
kliënt se optrede is, met respek, onverstaanbaar. Die Skikkingsakte
is in ‘n baie goeie gees onderteken en is basies ‘n bloudruk
van
die Skikkingsakte wat deur sy regsverteenwoordigers opgestel is.
Daar kan min twyfel bestaan dat u kliënt se optrede kwaadwillig
en
kwelsugtig is. Onder die omstandighede is ‘n bestrawwende
kostebevel dus meer as geregverdig en gaan ons kliënt op sodanige
bevel aandring.”
Respondent replies,
inter
alia
,
as follows to these allegations:
“
6.1 No
detail is provided as to the manner of refusal. No affidavit is
annexed in corroboration thereof and I am advised that Applicant
cannot cure this defect in her replying affidavit. In so far as it
is implied that a bank official was refused entry between
3
and
8
February 2005
, I have no
knowledge whatsoever.
6.2 Likewise I did not have sight of
Annexure
EAF4
until the present application was served.
6.5 The
letter
EAF5
merely confirms my attitude as set out in Annexure
DAF1
.
I am not sure what steps Applicant took between
28
February 2005
and
1
March 2005
to arrange for
valuations, as she is silent on this aspect. I categorically deny
that I ever refused access to the property. I
admit reconfirming to
Mr van Biljon
that Applicant was welcome to proceed with any arrangements she
wished in order to effect the valuations.
7.
Once again, absolutely no detail
regarding my alleged refusal is provided. I categorically deny this
unfounded allegation. It is
inconceivable that bank officials could
not gain access to either 97A or 97B during the period
29
March 2005
until
19
April 2005
. Applicant is
obviously attempting to place the blame on me for the ineptness of
the bank officials involved. I am not sure as
to how I could ever
refuse access, as I am not the owner of the said property.”
It is unnecessary to
quote at length from respondent’s answering affidavit. His bare
denial that he denied access to the property
rings hollow in the
light of the repeated allegations to the contrary in the letters from
applicant’s attorneys to his attorneys.
His denial is in any event
effectively discredited by the affidavit of Mr. Rinus Pretorius, to
whom he himself refers in his answering
affidavit.
Mr. Williams, who
appeared on behalf of respondent, correctly conceded that on his own
version respondent discouraged Mr. Pretorius
from visiting the
property for the purpose of valuating it. It is also common cause
that both dwellings on the property were occupied
at all relevant
times: one by respondent’s ex-wife and one by lessees. I cannot
agree with Mr. Williams’s submission that applicant
should simply
have instructed the valuators to enter the property or should have
made arrangements with his ex-wife for that purpose.
No one else but
respondent was obliged by the terms of clause 10 of the settlement
agreement:
“
om die nodige samewerking en
toegang tot die eiendom te verleen.”
The evidence as a whole
leaves me with no doubt that the probabilities favour applicant’s
version. She was obviously anxious to
fulfil her obligations in
terms of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the settlement agreement. For that
purpose she had to register a bond over
the property as provided for
in paragraph 10. It was definitely not in her interest to delay the
registration of the bond. The
repeated letters of her attorneys, in
which consent to access was sought, confirm her allegation that
access was denied to the valuators.
Although it was also not in
respondent’s interest to delay payment to him, my clear impression
from all the papers is that he
was obstructive throughout, as the
history of the litigation between the parties shows.
I, therefore, accept
applicant’s version as probably true.
It is common cause that
applicant threatened to bring an urgent application to gain access to
the property as early as 8 February
2005. This threat was repeated
on 19 April 2005. In both these letters her attorneys intimated that
she will seek a punitive costs
order. Eventually the notice of
motion was issued on 17 May 2005 and the application was moved the
following day. I was satisfied
that urgency had been shown and
granted prayer 1 as appears from the order quoted above. I am now
also satisfied that first respondent’s
conduct and attitude
throughout was calculated to obstruct and frustrate applicant. Mr.
Williams nevertheless submitted that should
the Court decide to grant
a final order in terms of prayers 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, it should order
that the parties pay their own costs.
In my view, applicant acted
prudently to launch the application. She is resident in the Western
Cape and as far as she was concerned,
both respondents occupied the
property, or at least had the right of occupation, until 1 May 2005,
as is evident from clause 9 of
the settlement agreement. She was not
physically in Bloemfontein to have made arrangements with the people
who occupied the property
to grant access thereto.
In the settlement
agreement respondent bound himself to perform all the obligations of
the Fin Prop Trust. In the result paragraph
3.4 of the rule
nisi
can also be confirmed.
The
order of the Court is as follows:
The rule
nisi
dated 18 May 2005 is confirmed.
_________________
J.P. MALHERBE, JP
On
behalf of applicants: Adv. H.J. Benade
Instructed
by:
Symington
& De Kok
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of respondents: Adv. A. Williams
Instructed
by:
Bezuidenhouts
Inc
BLOEMFONTEIN
/sp