Naledi Sovasi v Ntsikelelo Luyanda Sovasi

The parties are former spouses who concluded a deed of settlement during divorce proceedings in the Regional Court. The deed of settlement was made an order of court on 06 May 2021. Clause 10.3.5 of the settlement provided that the respondent would procure transfer of the jointly owned immovable property at 63 Manley Road, East London into his name within 90 days of the divorce, failing which the property would be sold on the open market and the net proceeds divided equally. The respondent failed to transfer the property within the stipulated period. The applicant alleged that the respondent wilfully obstructed the sale, continued occupying the property, and allowed municipal and bond arrears to accrue. The applicant approached the High Court seeking a mandatory interdict compelling the respondent to facilitate the sale, sign transfer documents, allow access to auctioneers, and authorising the sheriff to sign documents if the respondent failed to do so. In the alternative, the matter was argued as involving contempt of court, although no explicit contempt relief was pleaded.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The judgment underscores the principle that parties must exhaust adequate alternative remedies provided in a contract before seeking interdictory relief from court. It also reaffirms strict pleading requirements in motion proceedings and clarifies that contempt of court requires clear proof of service or knowledge of the order and wilful, mala fide non-compliance. The case highlights judicial reluctance to grant mandatory interdicts where contractual mechanisms already provide equivalent relief.