REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Reportable: No
Of inte rest to other Judges: No
Revise d: No
SIGNATURE
Date: 29 April 2026
In the matter between:
LEON GRIESEL
MARTHA SUSANNA VAN JAARSVELD
and
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
EXECUTORS GROUP (PTY) LTD
PHILLIP COETZEE N.O.
Case No: 132059 / 2024
First Applicant
Second Applicant
First Resp ondent
Second Respondent
Third Respo ndent
2
JUDGEMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MOOKI J
1 The applicants lodged a claim against a deceased estate. The executor
rejected the claim and published the first and final liquidation account. The
applicants objected to the account. The Master overruled the objection. The
applicants now seek that the court set aside the decision by the Master and
that the excutor be ordered to amend the account by including a claim by
the applicants. The relief is sought pursuant to section 35(10) of the
Administration of Estates Act, 66 of 1965 (the Act).
2 The Master did not file papers nor participate in the proceedings. The
Master appointed Mr Phillip Coetzee (Executor), the sole director of the
second respondent, executor of the estate of the late Andrew Christodoulou
(the deceased/Mr Christodoulou).
3 Mr Christodoul ou, before his death, sold immovable property to the
applicants. The Master authorised the transfer of the property to the
applicants in terms of section 42(2) of the Act.
4 The applicants claimed against the estate based on the applicants having to
incur expenses for ensuring that there was adequate water on the property.
The applicants initially claimed the amount of R115 673.19. The amount
was presented to the Executor as a quotation for drilling and equipping a
3
borehole because the property was represented as having ample water for
the applicants’ intended agricultural activities. The applicants ultimately
claimed R211 903.65. This amount was also set out in quotations.
5 Mr Coetzee rejected the claim and published the first and final liquidation
account. The applicants objected to the account. The Master refused their
objection, leading to this application.
6 The applicants contend that an agent of the deceased marketed the
property on an understanding that the property had to have adequate
water because the applicants intended to use the property for agricultural
purposes. The property had three boreholes.
7 The applicants signed the purchase agreement on 23 March 2023. The
agent gave the applicants an unsigned borehole certificate on 16 May 2023.
The certificate recorded that one of the boreholes produced 206 litres per
hour. The applicants wrote to the agent on 30 May 2023, saying the
borehole yield was insufficient, including for domestic use.
8 The applicants say they raised the issue of the inadequate water with the
transferring attorneys. Those attorneys threatened the applicants and
obliged the applicants to pay outstanding amounts for the attorneys to
effect transfer. The applicants say they obliged by making the payments.
9 The Master, in rejecting the objection by the applicants, pointed out that
their claim was premised on a stated misrepresentation that the property
had adequate water. The Master refused the objection essentially on the
following bases: the purchase agreement has a condition regarding a
4
borehole yield test and water quality certificate of compliance, but that the
applicants proceeded with the sale whilst aware that there would be
insufficient water according to their standards.
10 The Master did not, as stated above, participate in the proceedings. The
Executor filed opposing papers. The Executor raised several preliminary
objections, namely:
(1) mis
-joinder in citing the second respondent;
(2) non-joinder of Mr Coetzee as the executor;
(3) failure to set-out a cause of action;
(4) the existence of disputes of fact;
(5) the court cannot determine the specific amount which the applicants
seek to be reflected in the Liquidation and Distribution Account, given
the dispute in the papers, and
(6) It was not shown that the Master did not apply her mind to the
objection
by the applicants.
11 The Executor denies that the applicants are entitled to relief on the merits.
He pointed out, for example, that the applicants made a hand annotation on
the agreement of sale but did not record that it was a requirement that the
property should have adequate water. This, according to the Executor,
would have been written-up in the agreement if adequate water was an
important requirement for the applicants. The Executor took issue with the
5
applicants’ reliance on the estate agent becaus e it was hearsay. The issue of
availability of ample water, according to the Executor, surfaced late in the
process. There was never a stipulation, according to the Executor, that it
was a requirement that there be adequate water supply for agricultural
purposes.
12 The Executor denies that the applicants were threatened, pointing out that
the transferring attorneys were apologetic in requesting the applicants to
pay the deposit to proceed with the sale, failing which the attorneys would
be obliged to demand payment formally. The applicants did not register a
protest when they replied to the request to pay the deposit.
13 The applicants invoke section 35(10) of the Act in setting aside the decision
by the Master. The section provides as follows:
Any person aggrieved by any such direction of the Master or
by a refusal of the Master to sustain an objection so lodged,
may apply bu motion to the Court within thirty days after the
date of such direction or refusal or within such further period
as the Court may allow, f or an order to set aside the Master’s
decision and the Court may make such order as it may think
fit.
14 The applicants attack the finding by the Master with reference to
paragraphs 34
1, 352, 363, and 374 of the decision by the Master rejecting the
applicants’ objection.
1 “The executor argues that the buyer proceeded with the sale aware of the fact that there will
be not (sic) enough yield and the executor rejected the objector’s claim.”
2 “The objection (sic) was provided with the borehole certificate on 16 May 2023.”
6
15 The Court, in proceedings pursuant to section 35(10) of the Act, can
consider a matter afresh and may make any order the court deems fit. 5 The
court has a wide discretion in such proceedings.
16 The applicants take issue with the Master acceptin g the executor’s stance
that the applicants proceeded with the sale notwithstanding being aware
that there was inadequate water. The applicants say they were threatened
by the transferring attorneys. I do not accept that the applicants were
threatened as contended for. The transferring attorneys did nothing more
than to impress on the applicants the need to complete the sale transaction
and for the transfer of the property to be effected.
17 The applicants’ primary attack , as encapsulated in their written
submission, is that there was a misrepresentation as to the capacity of the
boreholes and that such misrepresentation, in law, entitled the applicants
to an election, namely; to cancel the agreement or to uphold the agreement
and seek a reduction of the purchase price, alternatively, to seek damages.
The applicants submit that they chose a reduction of the purchase price. It
was submitted on behalf of the applicants that the Master erred in not
upholding their objection to the liquidation and distribution account.
18 The applicants did not, in their founding affidavit, plead a cause of action
based on a reduction in purchase price. The applicants did not plead that
3 “The e-mail from the buyer dated 21 August 2023 stating that the sale should proceed even
though the water will not be adequate according to her standards, was provided in support of
the executor’s statement.”
4 “The objector did proceed with the same afte r receiving the borehole certificate and after
informing the executor per e-mail that they should proceed with the sale, even though the
informing the executor per e-mail that they should proceed with the sale, even though the
water will not be adequate according to her standards.”
5 Freidrich and Others v Smit NO and Others 2017 (4) SA 144 (SCA), para 14.
7
the amount of R211 903.65 was a reduction in the purchase price. The
relief in the founding affidavit is premised on the executor being directed to
amend the liquidation and distribution account to reflect a claim in favour
of the applicants in the amount of R211 903.65 . This amount is said to be
costs associated with ensuring that boreholes on the property supplied
adequate water.
19 The executor points out, as set out below, that the agreement does not
permit a reduction in the purchase price. It is unnecessary to decide this
aspect. That is because the applicants’ case in their founding papers is not
for a reduction in the purchase price . Their case is for an amendment of the
liquidation and distribution account. This amendment is not premised on
an entitlement to a reduction in the purchase price.
20
I must mention that there is no sound basis for the Court, in any event, to
order an amendment of the liquidation and distribution account based
exclusively on quotations. There is no evidence that the quotations relied
upon by the applicants reflect the true value of what the law, if a case is
made, would permit as an appropriate amount that constitutes a claim
against the estate and to be noted as such in the liquidation and
distribution account. A court will not accept quotations as constituting a
basis for a claim on their mere presentation.
21 The applicants, as detailed above, contend that they elected to uphold the
agreement notwithstanding the misrepresentation. The applicants are thus
bound by the terms of the agreement. They agreed to the following: that the
8
property was sold voetstoots 6, that they cannot seek a reduction in
purchase price 7, that the agreement constituted the whole agreement and
the parties are bound only by representations recorded in the agreement or
on a duly signed addendum 8; that any variation had to have been in writing
and signed by the parties 9, and that the applicants confirmed that the
transaction was not a result of direct marketing by the agent and that the
applicants had sufficient time to consider the offer.10
22 The applicants do not address the terms of the agreement in their written
submissions. Having elected to uphold the agreement, the applicants bound
themselves to those terms. The applicants do not say why they contend for
an entitlement to a reduction in the purchase price notwithstanding clause
8.2.3 of the agreement. They also do not say why they contend for a case
founded on a misrepresentation notwithstanding clause 17 of the
agreement.
23 The executor raised several preliminary objections. I consider that the
failure to cite the executor is the more meritorious objection. The
applicants sought leave to cite Mr Coetzee. They explained why he was not
cited. I accept their application and grant leave for Mr Coetzee to be cited
as a party.
24 I make the following order:
(1) Mr Phillip Coetzee N.O. is joined as a third respondent.
6 Clause 8.2.1.2
7 Clause 8.2.3
8 Clause 17
9 Clause 17.3
10 Clause 17.6
(2) The application is dismissed.
(3) The applicants are ordered to pay costs , including costs in the
interlocutory proceedings. Costs are on scale Bi
Counsel for the app licants :
Instructed by:
Counsel for the 2nd and third respondents:
Instructed by:
Date heard:
Date of judgment:
0 MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
J H Lerm
EW Serfontein Inc. Attorneys
E Janse van Rens burg
Nols Nolte Inc.
3 March 2026
29 April 2026
9