- Buyer honoured a R1.1 million sale but seller refused transfer, citing a supposed marriage.
- Court dismissed the claim as dishonest and confirmed the validity of the contract.
- Mpumalanga High Court land rights judgment ensures property transfer and protects future buyers.
When Sonja Gouws purchased a 36-hectare property near Mbombela, she believed she was investing in a secure future. She and her husband paid the agreed R1.1 million purchase price in full, a life-changing financial commitment made in the hope of owning their dream home.
With no hesitation, she threw herself into restoring and improving the neglected farm. She paid for water and electricity reconnections, repaired the pigsty, and built a flat on the property, steadily transforming the land into a place of dignity and stability. For Gouws, the purchase was never just a transaction, it was an act of building security and belonging.
But that hope was shattered when the seller, Bosodi Petrus Thobejane, turned against the agreement. Despite signing the contract as “unmarried” and accepting every cent of the R1.1 million, he later refused to transfer the property into Gouws’s name.
Instead, he raised a new claim that he was in fact married in community of property and therefore could not sell without spousal consent. The move was not just a refusal of transfer, but it was an attempt to undo the trust on which the transaction had been built.
The court unmasks dishonesty
The dispute reached the Mpumalanga High Court, where Acting Judge S Msibi cut through the seller’s claims. The court observed that Thobejane had offered no proof of marriage; no certificate, no testimony from a spouse, no evidence at all. The judge ruled that his assertion was a fabrication, deliberately raised to frustrate the transfer.
Even if he had been married, the court explained, section 15(9)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act protects buyers who act in good faith. A purchaser cannot be punished for the dishonesty of a seller, and the law does not allow families to be displaced after making full payment simply because of a false claim of marital consent.
The Mpumalanga High Court land rights judgment declared the sale valid and binding, dismissing Thobejane’s defence as dishonest. It ordered that the property be transferred to Gouws, and to prevent further obstruction, it authorised the Sheriff to sign all necessary transfer documents if the seller refused.
Why damages were not enough
One of the most significant aspects of the Mpumalanga High Court land rights judgment was its refusal to reduce the matter to mere compensation. The court recognised that this was not just about money; Gouws had already invested herself in the land.
She had renovated the home, made improvements to the infrastructure, and shaped the property into her own. To deny her transfer and merely offer damages would strip her of both her financial investment and her dignity. In siding with specific performance, the actual transfer of the land, the court affirmed that justice must protect lived realities, not only balance accounts.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
