R1.5m house sold for R1,000

Attorney who bid for property represented teacher’s ex-wife in divorce

The Mahikeng high court has set aside the controversial auction of a R1.5m house after finding the auction process was conducted unfairly.  

The house, part of a divorce settlement between a married couple, was sold for R1,000, a fraction of its market value, at an auction held on October 5 2023.

Only two bidders participated in the auction, one of whom was the wife’s lawyer.

The case stems from a divorce settlement reached in 2022 between the couple, who were married in community of property. As part of the settlement, they agreed to sell the family home at auction, with the proceeds to be divided equally.

In March 2023, the man was served with a writ of attachment of the property. In July he found documents detailing the conditions of the auction lying in the front yard of the property. The auction was to be held on October 5. On that day, the applicant [ex-husband] took leave from work in anticipation of the auction, which he thought would be held at the house.

On the same day, he went to the office of the sheriff to make inquiries and was told the auction was held there and the property was sold for R1,000 to the highest bidder of the two who attended the auction. The property was sold to his ex-wife's attorney acting in terms of a power of attorney on her behalf.

The man launched a court application for an order to set aside the sale and for his ex-wife to be interdicted and prohibited from taking transfer of the property into her name.

She opposed the application, arguing the auction was advertised in the local newspaper, Mahikeng Mail, and it stated, though in the fine print, that the sale would be held at the sheriff's office.

Judge Ronald Deon Hendricks said the woman, through her attorneys, had inquired from her ex-husband whether he would purchase her half-share in the immovable property. According to the judge, the woman became aware the man received an offer to purchase the property for R900,000.

Based on this, the woman proposed the man should buy her out for R700,000. There was no response from her ex-husband and she informed him the property would be auctioned.

The court said if R700,000 was the amount she regarded as fair value for a half-share of the property, why would it be fair, just and equitable that she, through the assistance of her attorney, buy the said property for only R1,000 with her attorney one of only two bidders acting on her instructions.

The property was not sold to an independent third party because she set the auction process and authorised her attorney to bid. Hendricks found this unfair towards the ex-husband.

The woman was ordered to pay the costs of her ex-husband’s application.

SowetanLIVE