Roseline Mugodhi and Vimbai Manemo v Lindiwe Ndebele and Nesbert Chikaka and Registrar of Deeds and Sheriff of the High Court

The second applicant allegedly bought property (Stand 10679 Bulawayo Township, 21 Banbury Road, Southwold) from the second respondent and paid the full purchase price on 2 June 2015. The first applicant took occupation in August 2015 and received the original title deed. There were two agreements of sale: one between the second respondent and second applicant dated 23 May 2015 for $60,000, and another between the second respondent and first applicant dated 2 June 2015 for $65,000. The second respondent signed a power of attorney to make transfer on 2 June 2015. However, the second respondent alleged he had sold the property to the first respondent (Lindiwe Ndebele), and had only borrowed $20,000 from the second applicant, tendering the title deeds as security. The agreements of sale were allegedly drafted to present the loan as a sale agreement in case the first respondent failed to pay the balance. The first respondent already had a court order in her favour confirming her purchase. The applicants sought to interdict the Registrar of Deeds from transferring the property to the first respondent and the Sheriff from evicting the first applicant.

• Whether the applicants had established a prima facie right to the property
• Whether the applicants had made out a case for interim relief
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interdict
• Whether there were valid agreements of sale between the applicants and the second respondent
• The effect of conflicting agreements of sale over the same property
• Whether the first respondent's prior claim to the property took precedence

The urgent application was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, as the respondents did not insist on costs being met by the applicants.

To obtain an interdict, an applicant must establish: (1) a prima facie right to the property or relief sought; (2) a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interdict is not granted; (3) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the interdict; and (4) the absence of any other satisfactory remedy. Where multiple agreements of sale exist over the same property without adequate proof of payment and with contradictory terms, and where a prior purchaser has already obtained a court order confirming their purchase and full payment, subsequent purported purchasers cannot establish the requisite prima facie right to interdict transfer to the prior purchaser. A seller cannot validly grant a power of attorney to divest himself of property rights before receiving full payment of the purchase price.

The court observed that the agreements did not appear to have been drawn by a qualified legal practitioner due to their vagueness, despite the applicants' claims. The court noted that it "defies logic" that a seller would sign transfer documents and power of attorney before receiving payment. The court commented on the conflict of interest arising from the applicants' lawyers also acting as the seller's conveyancers, stating this was "no wonder why the agreements drawn do not make any legal sense at all." The court suggested that the applicants' money appeared to be with their lawyers rather than with the second respondent. The court indicated that even if valid agreements existed, the first respondent's prior claim would take precedence as she was the first purchaser who had paid in full and obtained a court order.

This case illustrates the importance of proper documentation and proof of payment in property transactions. It demonstrates the court's scrutiny of suspicious transactions involving multiple purported sales of the same property and the need for clear, unambiguous agreements of sale. The case also highlights the prohibition on conflicts of interest where legal practitioners represent both purchaser and seller in the same transaction. It reinforces the requirements for obtaining interim interdicts, particularly the need to establish a prima facie right, that the balance of convenience favours the applicant, and that there is a right worthy of protection. The case serves as a warning against attempting to use manufactured sale agreements to secure loans or create backdated rights to property.