4
REA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
(3) REVISED —
7 rig
21 July 2025
Case No A77/2025
909/2014
In the matter between:
BONDEV MIDRAND (PTY) LTD APPELLANT
and
CHRISTINA MARIA SYBELLA VAN BLERK FIRST RESPONDENT
THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS SECOND RESPONDENT
STANDARD BANK OF SA (PTY) LTD THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
2
[1] The appellant, Bondev develops immovable property. The first respondent, Ms
Van Blerk is an estate agent. She sold erven generally, as an agent accredited by
Bondev, in the development in question.
[2] Bondev sold an erf to Mr and Mrs Barkhuizen for R390 000. They on-sold it to
Pandowe Property Investments CC. Pandowe went into liquidation and its liquidators
sold the property to Ms Van Blerk for R310 000.
[3] Without putting too fine a point on it, the agreements of sale contain a clause
to the effect that the purchaser was obliged to build on the property by a certain date
and if this was not done, the seller had the right to claim re-transfer of the property
against payment by the seller of the purchase price back to the buyer.
[4] It may be, and I make no finding thereon, that the right to enforce building is a
real right and the right to reclaim the erf for failure to build is a personal right.
[5] It would appear that the various title deeds also contained the same or similar
clauses.
[6] Ms Van Blerk, after the property was registered in her name is alleged by |
Bondev to have done little to build on her erf.
[7] Bondev, worried that an undeveloped erf was a security risk demanded of Ms
Van Blerk that she build on the erf. When she apparently balked, Bondev launched
application proceedings against her. Bondev sought registration of the erf in its name.
In the alternative, Bondev sought payment of R753 147, 95, or such amount as
determined by the court. The apparent basis for the alternative claim is that Ms Van
Blerk would be unjustly enriched at Bondev’s expense unless the alternative claim was
granted.
[8] Originally, Bondev’s application was unopposed. An order was granted by the
court on a default basis on 14 May 2014.The court ordered Ms Van Blerk to transfer
the erf to Bondev against payment by Bondev to Ms Van Blerk of R390 000. It would
seem that Bondev paid Ms Van Blerk the R390 000.
3
[9] Acting pursuant to the court order of 14 May 2014, the sheriff signed the
necessary documents to effect transfer of the erf back into the name of Bondev. The
erf was registered in the name of Bondev.
[10] Ms Van Blerk later obtained a rescission of the order of 14 May 2024. Despite
the rescission, the erf is still registered in the name of Bondev. Ms Van Blerk launched :
a counter-application to have the erf transferred back to her. She sought also related
relief.
[11] Bondev, despite it being the registered owner of the erf, persisted in its claim
for transfer of the erf to it and Bondev persisted in its claim in the alternative under
unjust enrichment.
[12] Ms Van Blerk raised a number of defences, including a defence of prescription
to Bondev’s main claim.
[13] In the court below, Retief J upheld the defence of prescription raised by Ms Van
Blerk to the main claim by Bondev for re-transfer of the erf and effectively, though not
expressly, dismissed Bondev's main claim.
[14] The learned judge ordered that Ms Van Blerk pay R390 000 to Bondev and that
once she had done so, the erf was to be transferred into the name of Ms Van Blerk.
[15] | Bondev now appeals the order of Retief J, with her leave. There is no cross-
appeal by Ms Van Blerk.
[16] The affidavits and documents in this matter are many and complex. There are
enormous disputes of fact. It is not necessary to detail every factual dispute. On 14
August 2018, before the hearing of the main application and counter-application,
Bondev’s attorney wrote to Ms Van Blerk’s attorney suggesting that there were serious
disputes of fact and that the matter should go to trial.
[17] _ It suffices to refer to two areas of factual dispute.
[18] Firstly, part of Bondev’s defence to Ms Van Blerk’s prescription point is a
document, apparently dated 1 November 2011. Ms Van Blerk is alleged to have signed
the document and to have agreed that she would build on her erf by a certain,