North West High Court (Mafikeng) Judge President Ronald Hendricks has overturned the sale of a house on auction to ‘the highest bidder’ after a divorced wife went behind her husband’s back and bought the home, valued at more than R1.5m, through her attorney for just R1 000.

A Pretoria News report says according to a divorce settlement, the house was to be sold to the highest bidder, and the parties agreed that they would split the proceeds.

However, the husband was unaware that the house was sold from under his nose to the ‘highest bidder’ – the attorney, who had a mandate from the wife to buy it on her behalf.

Thus, if the proceeds were to be split, the husband was due to receive R500 for the home valued at more than R1.5m.

The husband subsequently turned to High Court, asking that the sale be overturned and barring the property from being transferred.

The application was opposed, mainly on the basis that the sale in execution of the property was properly and lawfully done, as the highest bidder’s offer (R1 000) was accepted.

The contention by the wife, through her attorney, was that the sale in execution of the property was advertised in the local newspaper and it categorically stated – although in the fine print – that the sale would be held at the sheriff's office, with the address provided.

According to the wife, all the requirements were complied with. She also said that the notice of sale was placed on the notice board in the foyer of the High Court.

Thus, she said, she did everything that was required of her.

Hendricks said in terms of the agreement, both parties would split the proceeds of the sale to the highest bidder and the intention was that neither of them should unduly benefit, to the exclusion of the other.

The Pretoria News report notes while the property was indeed sold to ‘the highest bidder,’ there was a history to this matter.

The wife earlier, through her attorney, asked the husband whether he would purchase her half-share in the property, but no response was received. She became aware that her husband received an offer from someone to buy the property for R900 000.

Based on this, she made a proposal that he should ‘buy her out’ at an amount of R700 000. The husband did not respond.

She then told him that the property would be auctioned.

Hendricks noted that it is not in dispute that in terms of the settlement agreement, either party may cause the property to be auctioned if the husband could not ‘buy out’ the wife (at 50% of the market value).

The judge said that the formalities of the sale in execution were complied with was not the issue.

‘What is in issue is the fairness and equity of the process.’

On her own version, the wife offered that the husband ‘buy her out’ and give her R700 000.

‘If this is the amount that she regarded as the fair value of a half-share of the immovable property, then the question that begs an answer is why would it be fair, just and equitable that she, through the assistance of her attorney, buy the property for only R1000,’ the judge questioned.

He said it is indisputable that the wife’s attorney knew that she wanted R700 000, which is a far cry from the R1 000 received for the property worth more than R1.5m.

‘This is certainly not just nor fair at all,’ the judge said.

In overturning the sale, he remarked: ‘This is clearly not a case that is to be determined by the “fall of the hammer” of the sheriff as auctioneer.’

Full Pretoria News report in The Star

Judgment