The applicant was one of thirteen siblings who were beneficiaries of the estate of Mr. McCloud Zvavovaviri Mapanga who passed away on 14 May 2018. The first respondent was appointed executor dative of the estate. On 10 May 2022, the first respondent granted the applicant and all other beneficiaries the right of first refusal to purchase property constituting the estate. On 17 June 2022, the applicant accepted the offer and opted to purchase Stand 357 of Willowvale Township of Stand 460 Willowvale Township for US$300,000.00, a price accepted by the fourth respondent. Despite the applicant's acceptance, on 27 July 2022, the applicant discovered an advertisement inviting potential bidders to view the property, with viewings scheduled from 3-12 August 2022. The first and second respondents proceeded to advertise the property for sale by private bid auction through the third respondent, despite the applicant's exercise of his right of first refusal.
The court granted the interim relief interdicting the first to third respondents from inviting viewers, auctioning, or disposing of Stand 357 of Willowvale Township of Stand 460 Willowvale Township pending finalization of the matter. The court directed the respondents to show cause why a final order should not be made declaring the agreement valid and enforceable, directing compliance with the agreement, and entitling the applicant to purchase the property for US$300,000.00 or local currency equivalent. Costs were to be determined in the final order on an attorney-client scale jointly and severally against the first and second respondents.
Where an executor dative grants beneficiaries of an estate a right of first refusal to purchase estate property, and a beneficiary accepts that offer at the stipulated price, a prima facie valid and enforceable agreement is created. An applicant is entitled to a temporary interdict preventing the sale of estate property where: (1) there is a prima facie right (offer and acceptance of right of first refusal); (2) imminent harm exists (property being auctioned before right can be exercised); (3) the balance of convenience favours the grant (refusal would render application academic and erode estate legacy); and (4) no alternative remedy exists.
The court noted that if the interdict was not granted and the property was sold by auction, the applicant's application would be rendered academic and his father's legacy would be permanently eroded. The court also observed that the rest of the beneficiaries did not accept the grant of first refusal, implying that the applicant's position was unique among the beneficiaries in exercising this right.
This case illustrates the enforceability of rights of first refusal granted to estate beneficiaries by executors, and the circumstances under which courts will grant interim interdicts to protect such rights. It demonstrates that an offer of right of first refusal followed by acceptance can constitute a prima facie valid and enforceable agreement. The case also clarifies the application of the test for temporary interdicts in the context of estate administration and property disposal, emphasizing that executors cannot proceed with public sales when a beneficiary has properly exercised a granted right of first refusal.