the purchase price of the property from a registered commercial bank by no later than 17h00 on 30 September 2005. Should the appellant fail to do so, the agreement would lapse and the first respondent would be obliged to refund all monies paid to him, together with the legal interest. The bank declined to grant the loan resulting in the lapse of the agreement. However the contention of the appellant was that a further oral agreement was entered into by the parties, seemingly reviving the lapsed agreement. Under that oral agreement the appellant would pay the purchase price of the property in monthly installments. Also common cause is that the parties entered into a further written agreement concluded on 30 April 2008, in terms of which the same property would be sold by the appellant to the Angolan Consulate in Rundu, but he would have to pay an additional N$260 000 to the first respondent in installments within a period of six months. Thereafter, the first respondent would transfer the property to the Angolan Consulate. During cross-examination in the High Court it was canvassed with him that the amount was meant to be partially occupational rent and partially payment towards the purchase price. There was however no clarity as to which portion of the amount was payment towards the purchase price. The appellant pleaded that the first respondent however failed to transfer the property to the Consulate or to him notwithstanding that he had paid the amount stipulated. For that reason the first respondent was in breach. Although acknowledging the agreements concluded on 29 September 2005 and on 30 April 2008 and on the terms alleged, the first respondent disputes that payments had been made according to the terms of any of the agreements. His position lies on the basis that the original agreement had lapsed on the 30 September 2005, when no payments had been made and he had cancelled the second agreement of 30 April 2008. He then sold the property to second respondent. He thus disputed any claim for specific performance and declined any tender by the appellant.
the purchase price of the property from a registered commercial bank by no later than 17h00 on 30 September 2005. Should the appellant fail to do so, the agreement would lapse and the first respondent would be obliged to refund all monies paid to him, together with the legal interest. The bank declined to grant the loan resulting in the lapse of the agreement. However the contention of the appellant was that a further oral agreement was entered into by the parties, seemingly reviving the lapsed agreement. Under that oral agreement the appellant would pay the purchase price of the property in monthly installments. Also common cause is that the parties entered into a further written agreement concluded on 30 April 2008, in terms of which the same property would be sold by the appellant to the Angolan Consulate in Rundu, but he would have to pay an additional N$260 000 to the first respondent in installments within a period of six months. Thereafter, the first respondent would transfer the property to the Angolan Consulate. During cross-examination in the High Court it was canvassed with him that the amount was meant to be partially occupational rent and partially payment towards the purchase price. There was however no clarity as to which portion of the amount was payment towards the purchase price. The appellant pleaded that the first respondent however failed to transfer the property to the Consulate or to him notwithstanding that he had paid the amount stipulated. For that reason the first respondent was in breach. Although acknowledging the agreements concluded on 29 September 2005 and on 30 April 2008 and on the terms alleged, the first respondent disputes that payments had been made according to the terms of any of the agreements. His position lies on the basis that the original agreement had lapsed on the 30 September 2005, when no payments had been made and he had cancelled the second agreement of 30 April 2008. He then sold the property to second respondent. He thus disputed any claim for specific performance and declined any tender by the appellant.
Van%20Schalkwyk%20v%20Dias%20(SA%2045-2016)%20[2018]%20NASC%20(13%20April%202018).docx