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 that the auction process was conducted unfairly.  

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

Only two bidders participated in the auction – one of which 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 thereafter served with a writ of attachment of the property and 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 2023. 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 informed that the auction was held there and that the property was sold for R1,000 to the highest bidder of the two that 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 that 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 highlighted that 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 that the man received an offer to purchase the property in the amount of R900,000.

Based on this, the woman proposed that the man should buy her out at an amount of R700,000 however, there was no response from her ex-husband. It was then that she informed him that the property would be auctioned.

The court mentioned that on the ex-wife’s version, she proposed that the applicant should buy her out at an amount of R700,000. If this was the amount that she regarded as the fair value of a half-share of the property, then the question was 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 being one of only two bidders, acting on her instructions.

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

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

SowetanLIVE