Page 2 of 4
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. On 4 September 2023, the applicant, the sheriff for Centurion, duly authorized,
sold an immovable property at a sale in execution. The sale agreement reflects
that the present second respondent, Mr Maepa concluded the agreement , by
signing it expressly on behalf of the present first respondent, Bemdi Financial
Solutions CC. Mr Maepa bound himself as surety.
2. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr Maepa paid the deposit. Mr Maepa is clearly the
moving force behind Be mdi.
3. The sheriff later cancelled the agreement on the required notice when the
balance of the purchase price was not paid.
4. In the present application, the sheriff seeks orders that the agreement be
cancelled, the property resold and that the sheriff retain the deposit.
5. Mr Maepa filed an answering affidavit. He raises technical legal points which are
not easy to follow. Simply put, Mr Maepa alleges that neither he nor Bemdi are
liable under the sale agreement.
6. In a replying affidavit, the sheriff points out with apparent justification that
whatever case Mr Maepa attempted to raise in answer is without merit.
7. It is not necessary to delve into the minutiae of Mr Maepa’s points.
8. The applicant’s attorney has filed a supplementary affidavit dealing in detail with
what happened at a hearing of the present application on 4 September 2024.
Page 3 of 4
9. Mr Maepa appeared. He addressed the court in person. He made no attempt to
rely on his answering affidavit. He effectively admitted liability on behalf of Bemdi
and personal liabi lity. He simply asked for time. He said that he had paid all the
costs necessary to proceed with the sale to Bemdi. He asked that the case be
postponed with costs on the party and party scale rather than on a punitive scale.
He asked that interest be waive d by the relevant bank as execution creditor. He
did not allege that he was not liable for interest. He said simply that he could not
afford interest.
10. The matter was postponed.
11. There is correspondence on record since then. Mr Maepa’s position is clear. On
his own version, he and Bemdi are liable and he has paid everything owing but
he simply wants the bank to waive interest. The bank won’t.
12. Mr Maepa paid the interest shortly before the present hearing. The last amount of
outstanding interest was paid as l ate as Friday, three days ago.
13. Mr Venter for the applicant withdraws the application but he wants costs of the
application on a punitive scale.
14. Mr Maepa addressed me in person. He confirmed that he represented Bemdi
and himself. He said that he genuinely did not have funds in time. I believe Mr
Maepa but the present litigation was wholly unnecessary in the end and only
because of delays by Mr Maepa in finalizing payments to the bank.
15. In my view, punitive costs are called for.
16. A draft order was prepared by Mr Venter.