A frustrated woman who moved to the Western Cape, dragged her estranged husband to court in an effort to evict him from her Pretoria house so that it can be registered to the potential buyer.
The parties got married out of community of property with the application of accrual in 2019. They are in the middle of a divorce.
They lived in the woman’s house throughout their marriage.
Its not mentioned when the woman moved out, however, some time in September 2023, she informed the husband that she had sold the house.
She approached the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on an urgent basis after the husband refused to leave the house until his demands were met.
In her application, she said the husband has continuously made several attempts to frustrate the sale of her house.
She said she was worried that he will still be occupying the house on the date of transfer, thereby making it difficult for the purchaser to be provided vacant occupation.
She said if the matter is not heard on an urgent basis, she will not have substantial redress in due course because the transfer was estimated to take place by October 27, 2023.
In his response, the husband said that the application was not urgent because the offer to purchase was signed on July 30, 2023.
He added that the wife delayed to bring the application and has not provided an account of what caused the delay.
He further argued that the offer to purchase agreement neither made provision for vacant occupation nor contained any warranty that upon the date of transfer, the property shall be vacant and that he should be evicted from the property.
He said there was no evidence demonstrating that the purchaser insisted on a vacant occupation.
The husband said the urgency was self-created because the wife’s attorney constructed the transfer.
“The applicant (wife) failed to explain why the transfer was rushed in October while the agreement was signed in July 2023,” added the husband.
Looking into the urgency of the application, acting Judge Clement Marumoagae said there was no evidence before court which suggests that the purchaser was anxious to have the property transferred into their name.
He further added there was no evidence that suggests that the purchaser exerted pressure on the wife to transfer the property within a reasonable time.
He also criticised the wife for failing to inform the husband on time regarding the sale of the house, as the offer to purchase was signed on July, 30, 2023, and had he been told on time, he would an opportunity to seek alternative accommodation.
“I agree with the husband that the urgency is self-created. The fact that the wife desires the matter to be resolved urgently, does not render the matter urgent.
“...the wife appears to have pressured her legal representatives to find a quick solution to her dilemma. She needs to sell the property because she has relocated to the Western Cape.
“Unfortunately, this is not the basis upon which cases can be heard on an urgent basis by this court,” said acting judge Marumoagae.
Lastly, the judge said the high court was not designed to come to the rescue of impatient litigants.
“I am of the view that the relief sought by the wife does not necessitate this court’s urgent attention,” he said.
As a result, her application was dismissed and she was ordered to pay the costs.
IOL