SCA ALTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: HIGH COURT CASE NO: 16215/22 In the matter between: GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD 1st Applicant JEAN PIERRE NORTJE 2nd Applicant HORIZON GROUP (PTY) LTD 3rd Applicant and CATHERINE JUDY BROWN Respondent FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT __________________________________________________________________ 1. the undersigned JEAN PIERRE NORTJE hereby make oath and state: 1.1 I am an adult male business person born on 30 May 1950, I am the Second Appeal Applicant in this Application for Leave to Appeal and I am the sole director of both the First and Third Appeal Applicants. 1.2 I am duly authorised to represent all three Appeal Applicants in this matter to institute these proceedings before this Honourable Court for Leave to Appeal against the judgement and orders made by Honourable Judge Fortuin in the Western Cape High Court. 1.3 I am also duly authorised to depose to this affidavit in support of this Application on behalf of all the Appeal Applicants. 1.4 Save where otherwise stated or the context indicated to the contrary, the facts contained herein are within my personal knowledge and belief true and correct. 1.5 Where I make submissions of a legal nature, said submissions are made based on the legal advice that I receive from my legal advisor, which advice I accept to be reliable and correct. Where I refer to hearsay, I will identify the source and regard the source as reliable. 1.6 Where I make statements of a factual nature and where such facts are not common knowledge or easy to corroborate in the public sphere, I will be referring to actual documentation and emails to substantiate my statements. 1.7 Where I make submissions relating to interpretation of contracts and business dealings I rely on my academic qualifications, 50 years of experience as a business person and as a qualified Estate Agent and Estate Agency Principal with extensive knowledge of Property Development and Agreement of Sale Contracts. 1.8 The Parties in this Application are as they appear on the face of this Affidavit and the Notice of Motion. 2. PURPOSE AND RELIEF SOUGHT 2.1 The purpose of this Application is to ask the Honourable Court to grant Leave to Appeal against the whole judgement and orders made by Honourable Judge Fortuin on 4 September 2023 in the High Court Western Cape Division. A copy of this order is attached marked “A”. A copy of the Judgement is attached marked “B” 2.2 Leave to Appeal is sought from this Court in terms of section 17(2)(b) as the Honourable Judge Fortuin dismissed the Application for Leave to Appeal on 17 April 2024 in the High Court Western Cape Division. A copy of the order of dimissal is attached marked “C” A letter of confirmation by the Registrar of the High Court Western Cape, that the Judgement have not been forthcoming is attached marked “D” 3. TERMINOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION 3.1 In dealing with the Court Case Number 1621/55 Court Transcription and the Proceedings of the Court Case I would need to use the following terminology: 3.2 The Applicant / Seller in the original Court Case, Catherine Brown, is now the Appeal Respondent in this Application for Leave to Appeal, so to avoid confusion I will refer to her as “CB” or “the Seller” in this Argument. 3.3 The Respondents in the original Court Case, are now the Appeal Applicants in the Application for Leave to Appeal, so to avoid confusion I will refer the first Appeal Applicant as “GDA”, the second Appeal Applicant, myself as “the Agent, JPN or me or I” and the third Appeal Applicant as “HG”, in this Affidavit, or collectively as the Appellants. 3.4 The Judge – the Honourable Judge Ms Fortuin (the Judge) 3.5 CB’s Attorney – Mr Gabri Jordaan (Mr Jordaan) 3.6 CB’s Advocate – Advocate J C Tredoux (Mr Tredoux) 3.7 JP Nortje – Appearing for the Appeal Applicants. (the Agent, Myself, I, me) 3.8 Court Transcription of Proceedings – (the CT) 3.9 Paginated and Indexed Court File – (ICF) 4. BACKGROUND 4.1 My name is Jean Pierre Nortje. I am 73 years of age with a career in property and computer technology. I am also a fully qualified Estate Agent and Auctioneer. 4.2 I inter alia do Property development, Building projects as well as Website development. 4.3 In the process I own a number of business initiatives, entities, domain names and websites. These include but are not limited to, Horizon Property Group (Pty) Ltd which trades as Horizon Projects when doing Building Projects. Propexpress – a fully accredited Estate Agency of whom I am the Principal. Bestbidonline – an internet property trading platform allowing for Silent Auctions. 4.4 My activities therefore include the facilitation of property transactions, consulting with property portfolio owners and facilitating property renovation and development work. The definition of a Facilitator is someone who guides and assists role players to achieve specific goals. 4.5 The above background is important as CB’s legal team spent hours trying to confuse the Judge about all of the above, and to argue that any or all of this was misrepresentation, fictitious, fraudulent or abnormal, which they achieved spectacularly as the Court Transcript and the Judge’s Ruling will illustrate. 4.6 In November 2019 CB approached me as an Estate Agent to Sell her Property in Sea Point Cape Town. 4.7 After 5 months of marketing efforts, it was clear that there was very little interest in the Property, even at R3m, as a result of the condition of the house, which was effectively a ruin that had to be totally rebuilt, as the before and after images recorded on the Horizon Group Mount Nelson Project website illustrates. https://horizonpropserv.wordpress.com/ 4.8 On 20 March 2020 CB accepted an offer by Ms Du Plessis to buy this property, subject to repairs and renovations to be done by the Purchaser, before Transfer. 4.9 I was the Agent that facilitated this Sale. 4.10 The Agreement of Sale that came into being, hereinafter referred to as the AOS, was effectively a Development Agreement where the Purchaser would for all intents and purpose rebuild the house at her cost before taking transfer whilst the Property remained in the name of the Seller. Please see 6.THE AOS. 4.11 This meant that the Purchasers R3.5m investment to date is totally on risk with the AOS as the only form of security, which the Seller is now trying to steal from the Purchaser by trying to circumvent the AOS terms, by having it set aside, which is the subject matter of this case. 4.12 The Repairs and Renovation Project was delayed by : 4.12.1 the Seller being unable to give vacant occupation for most of 2020. 4.12.2 Covid in 2021. 4.12.3 The Seller threatening to cancel the AOS since 2022 4.13 This culminated in this Court Case Number 16215/22 5. THE STATUS QUO IS THEREFORE AS FOLLOWS: 5.1 The Purchaser have made numerous offers to conclude the transaction and to pay the Seller the Purchase Price, which her lawyer summarily rejects. 5.2 The Purchaser have improved the property in excess of R3.5m. 5.3 This case is clearly an attempt by the CB’s legal team to run up a legal bill and trying to unfairly enrich CB at the Purchaser and Appeal Applicant’s cost. 5.4 The setting aside of the Agreement of Sale (AOS) by Judge Fortuin is being extremely prejudicial against the Appeal Applicants and it is not in the interest of justice. 5.5 Considering the substantial investment in the Property to date the Purchaser is are taking extremely good care of it whilst while CB, the Seller is still the registered owner and therefore at no risk of not getting paid the Purchase Price, as per the AOS, or that the Property is not being maintained, cared for and protected. 5.6 The only way justice can be served is that the orders of the Honourable Judge Fortuin be set aside so that AOS can be ratified and that the 2 parties can conclude the transaction as allowed for in the AOS, or any similar arrangement that both parties agree to. THE ROLE PLAYERS, CONTRACTS, PARTIES AND ENTITIES 6. THE AGREEMENT OF SALE (AOS) 6.1 THE AOS is effectively a Property Development Contract on Silent Auction terms facilitated by me in my role as Agent/Auctioneer with my status and credentials spelt out in 7. THE AGENT . 6.2 The Seller is CB, as per her documents. 6.3 The Purchaser is as spelt out in 8. THE PURCHASER below. 6.4 The Seller, as per the AOS contract undertook to provide the Purchaser with Vacant Beneficial Occupation to perform repairs and renovations for her own account on the property before taking Transfer. 6.5 The relevant clause 7.1 in the AOS reads as follows “The Seller will provide the Purchaser with Beneficial Vacant Occupation of the Property to do cleaning and repairs/renovations within 7 days of the Signature Date.” 6.6 The front page of the AOS, clearly identifying the Price, the Parties and the Agent is attached marked “E” 7. THE AGENT 7.1 I, JEAN PIERRE NORTJE am the Estate Agent in the subject matter Agreement of Sale AOS. 7.2 CB’s attorneys convinced the Judge that I was not an Estate Agent at the time of concluding the AOS and that this was the cornerstone of their Misrepresentation allegations. The CT and the Judges Reasons for her Rulings illustrate this fact. 7.3 These allegations and findings are in fact totally erroneous and in my opinion in itself grounds for granting an Appeal against her Ruling. 7.4 It is therefore important to underline the facts of my Estate Agent Status as a cornerstone of this Application. 7.5 The SCA ruled as per Signature Real Estate (Pty) Ltd v Charles Edwards Properties and Others (415/2019) [2020] ZASCA 63 that it is in the spirit of our Bill of rights and enshrined in our Constitution that South African citizens are entitled to freely engage in their trades, occupation or profession, (such as an Estate Agent), in the event of any reason for delay in issuing an FFC Certificate laying squarely on the shoulders of the EAAB.(Estate Agency Affairs Board) 7.6 Provided that the Individual is already a registered Estate Agent with an FFC Certificate for a current year and had followed the guidelines and the timelines for paying his FFC for the following year, he is entitled to continue engaging in his profession as Estate Agent, regardless of the non issuance or late issue of his FFC due to delays or default by the EAAB. 7.7 The guidelines and payment timeline of the EAAB determine that an Agent must before the end of October in any given year pay for his FFC for the following year. 7.8 The following is an extract from the EAAB website. UPDATE ON FIDELITY FUND CERTIFICATES FOR 2020 – 13 Dec 2019 “The Estate Agency Affairs Board has made significant progress in issuing Fidelity Fund Certificates to all legally compliant estate agents. As of midday 13 December 2019, 24 993 FFC’s were issued. Of the 29 727 applications received from timely and compliant estate agents, only 4 734 remain outstanding. All the newly issued FFC’s relate to estate agents who have paid within the prescribed period of between 1 July and 31 October 2019 and are fully compliant. These FFC’s will be available on the EAAB portal by 14 December 2019.” 7.9 As we know my FFC was not issued as promised despite myself paying in time and being compliant. 7.10 The following documents are part the Original Court File but were conveniently omitted from “the bundle” handed to the Judge by Mr Tredoux and their presence in the original Court File was ignored by the Judge as her questions, which I will be dealing with, and as her Ruling clearly illustrate 7.10.1 My 2019 FFC Certificate proving that I was a fully accredited Estate Agent is attached marked “F” 7.10.2 Proof of my payment for my 2020 FFC to the EAAB dated 29 October 2019 is attached and marked “G” 7.10.3 Correspondence Proof of Enquiry by the Estate Agency with the EAAB for my 2020 FFC is attached marked “H” 7.10.4 My follow up letter to the EAAB re the 2020 FFC is attached marked “I” 7.10.5 The EAAB confirmation of this FFC application is attached marked “J” 7.11 I was therefore totally within my rights to practice my profession as Estate Agent at the time of concluding the AOS. 7.12 I am also a fully qualified Auctioneer, which is as per EAAB definition, also an Estate Agent when selling properties. 8. THE PURCHASER 8.1 CB’s attorneys convinced the Judge that Ms Du Plessis was fictitious and that that the agreement to sell GDA to her was fictitious and therefore I was the Purchaser of the Property. This was another cornerstone of their Misrepresentation allegations. The CT and the Judges Reasons for her Rulings “B’ illustrates this fact. 8.2 These allegations and findings are in fact totally erroneous. 8.3 It is therefore important to clarify the status and identity of the Purchaser as another cornerstone in this Application. 8.4 MS CRYSTALLA DU PLESSIS, NEE LANNOU, is known to me as a business person that have owned and operated inter alia Trucking and Shopping Centre Infrastructure Supply Companies. 8.5 Her family is of Greek origin tand collectively they substantial property holdings including shopping centres, residential apartments and commercial buildings locally and abroad. 8.6 I introduced her to the subject matter property and told her that I thought it had potential if it could be repaired and renovated cost effectively, and that I could facilitate these repairs and renovations for her via my building entity. I also offered that she could aquire one of my shelf companies, Groundswell Developments Africa (Pty) Ltd, (GDA), as the holding company the transaction. 8.7 Under SA Law in an Alienation of Land transaction the Purchaser can elect to enter such an agreement in his/her personal capacity, or on behalf of a company to be formed or on behalf of an existing entity provided they have the authorisation to do so. Developers prefer to ringfence each of their developments in a separate legal entity. There was therefore nothing untoward in this arrangement. 8.8 I entered into legally binding agreement with the Purchaser that I would arrange signing powers for her on behalf of GDA for the transaction and that she could take ownership of the company as soon as the compliance conditions of the Property transaction was achieved and transfer takes place. A copy of this agreement, which is part of the Court File, Index number 188, but which was also ignored by the Judge, is attached marked as “K” 8.9 The Purchaser then signed Agreement of Sale (AOS) for the Property on 20 March 2020 By Ms Du Plessis on behalf of GDA,. 8.10 The Purcgaser’s Confirmatory Affidavit is also part of the Court File index number 254 – 255 which was also ignored by the Judge s is clear from her Reasons attachment “B” 8.11 The Judge also stated on Page 91 of the CT “I have not seen any proof of any company in these papers” clearly indicating that this evidence was hidden from her or that she ignored my evidenciary documents, which is further reflected in her Ruling and Reasons. 8.12 GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (LTD) “(GDA)” is a South African Registered Private Company, In Business, formed in 2017 by myself and I am the Sole Director. 8.13 It is a fully legal operational entity with Business Activities Unrestricted as per its MOI attachment and as Sole Director I can sell the company, enter into any agreement and appoint anyone and grant any authority that I deem appropriate without a board resolution. 8.14 The CIPC documentation confirming this existence and status of GDA is part of the Court File, attachment JPN14, ICF page number 187. 8.15 There is therefore no excuse for the Judge not having read and comprehended these Court documents confirming the existence and status of these companies, and her statement and Judgement reflects this. 8.16 All agreements, Appointments and Contracts were properly recorded and the full identities of each role player was clearly spelt out, so there was no room for misunderstanding or any misreperesentation. 8.17 The notion that Ms Duplessis was just a front for me, that I was the Purchaser, and that I should have disclosed that to the Seller is therefore ludicrous. 9. THE CONTRACTOR/SERVICE PROVIDER 9.1 Mr Tredoux alleges and the Judge agrees as per her Ruling, that the Purchaser had no right to appoint a contractor, that CB, the Seller would not have agreed to that, that CB had no knowledge of Horizon Projects, that no Builders Lien could have been be established, and that Horizon was a fictitious entity and the judge stated. “I have not seen any proof of any company in these papers” 9.2 These facts are all erroneous and further clouded the Ruling of the Judge making it another compelling aspect begging Leave to Appeal. The confirmation of the existence and status of Horizon Group, (HG), is part of the Court File attachment CB25, ICF page numbers 97 – 102, and the facts are: 9.3 HORIZON GROUP (PTY) LTD “(HG)” HG is a South African Registered Private Company, In Business, formed in 2018 by myself and I am the Sole Director. 9.4 It is a fully legal entity with Business Activities Unrestricted and as Sole Director I can enter into any agreement and appoint anyone and grant any authority that I deem appropriate without a board resolution. 9.5 After signing the AOS for the Property, Ms Du Plessis, entered into a formal Renovation and Repairs Project Agreement (R&R), on behalf of Groundswell Developments Africa (Pty) Ltd (GDA), with Horizon Group (Pty) Ltd, trading as Horizon Projects (HG), dated 25 March 2020. 9.6 As can be seen from 8. THE PURCHASER, she was fully authorised to execute this R&R Agreement and under no obligation to inform CB as to whom would be actually performing the work, which she quite obviously was not going to do herself. The R&R agreement is part of the Court file attacment JPN16, ICF page 189-192. 9.7 The Purchaser is referred to as the CLIENT in the R&R agreement and HG is referred to as the SERVICE PROVIDER (SP) in the agreement. 9.8 This R&R Contract defined the SCOPE OF WORK to be done and stipulated the COST OF SUCH WORK UNDER CLAUSE 5 AS TOTALLING R3.565M, bearing in mind that this was virtually a total rebuild of a 200sqm historic house plus reinstating the erf and boundary infrastructure. 9.9 The payment of contract costs was stipulated in the R&R under clause 6 to be that the CLIENT undertakes to pay the Total Contract Cost Amount before or on taking Transfer of the Property and in the event that the Seller of the Property contributes towards the Contract Costs then such contribution amounts shall be deducted from the Total Contract Costs due by the CLIENT. 9.10 CB (the Seller) did in fact contribute to this cost illustrating that she was well aware of the status quo and the parties involved. 9.11 The R&R under clause 8 further provides that the SP would be entitled to receive full possession of the Property in order to effect the works, not to be interrupted and/or interfered with by the CLIENT or the Seller while the works is in progress, retain possession of the works until all amounts owed to the SP under this contract and under any other agreement or arrangement between the SP and the CLIENT in connection with the works have been paid and all obligations of the CLIENT of this contract have been fulfilled. 9.12 The R&R also specifies under clause 12 that The CLIENT pledges all Benefits of the Agreement of Sale of The Property to the SP as Surety for the Payment of the Total Contract Costs and that it is specifically agreed that the SP will take Occupation of the Premises for the duration of the Contract. 9.13 The R&R also specifies under clause 12 that a Builders Lien is being established by the Contract and that the SP will have the right to take Possession of the Property until such time as the Contract Costs are fully paid. 9.14 As early as my letter to BC dated 15 March 2020 I indicated in the Summary that one of her options was to repair/renovate the property before selling and that if she would consider this option that I would facilitate such repairs and renovations for her. 9.15 CB therefore knew full well that I was also in the property development business and was willing to facilitate repairs and renovations. 9.16 The Agreement of Sale AOS specifically provided for the Purchaser to have Beneficial Vacant Occupation to do repairs and renovations before taking transfer as per clause 7.1 and per definition that meant that her Contractors, such as the Service Provider, was granted access to the Property. 9.17 I submitted a report to CB of my preliminary perception of the of scope of work that was envisaged that CB might consider contributing to. This is part of the court file attachment JPN 35-5 ICF page 260.30 – 260.40. By its nature a Repairs and Renovation project will have unforseen and changing costs and scope especially if it spans over a long period of time and latent defects are discovered. There is therefore nothing new or mysterous obout this as Tredoux would like to allege. 9.18 At the inception of the repairs and renovations project I created a website so that the Seller, being resident in England, can be kept up to date with the project progress. 9.19 The Website front page is titled “Horizon Projects” and states the following “the Horizon Group provides property development and project management as well as property brokering and leasing services to its client base. Each project is facilitated in a separate website for client confidentiality this website is dedicated to the #30 Mount Nelson project” Website link https://horizonpropserv.wordpress.com 9.20 CB admits to and refers to this Website so she cannot claim that she was unaware of my, or Horizon Group or the Horizon Project entities and initiatives, its involvement in the repairs and renovations of the project and there was therefore no misrepresentation or room for misunderstanding of the roles of the parties from day one. 10. NON – COMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES AND UNLAWFUL ACTIONS 10.1 The Court case was marked by an astonishing number of inaccuracies, non-compliance with court requirements, procedures and rules and the Judge blatantly ignoring or not having any knowledge of my pleadings/documents. 10.2 The wilful and underhanded disregard of Court Rules and Procedures plus Criminal Evidence Tampering by Mr Jordaan/Mr Tredoux had a substantial influence on the Court Hearing and the Ruling by the Judge. 10.3 The Court Rules prescribe that the Plaintiff’s attorney, in this case CB’s attorney, Mr Jordaan, must Paginate and Index the Original Court File before the Court Date and timeously deliver a Copy thereof to the Defendant/Respondent, which in this case was myself. 10.4 Instead of this Mr Jordaan Paginated, Indexed and Inserted a falsified copy of the Court File wherein he had replaced my colour photographs, clearly illustrating the new and improved status of the Property, with hardly distinguishable grainy black and white photographs. No wonder the Judge ended up with no idea of the enormity of the work done on the Property by Horizon Group on behalf of the Purchaser. 10.5 He then proceeded understandably and wilfully not to avail the, myself, of a copy of such an indexed file before the Court Proceedings. 10.6 Not being a practicing lawyer or advocate I had no knowledge of this requirement and that all the references in my Heads of Argument had to refer to such indexed page numbers. 10.7 He therefore, with malice and aforethought, severely hampered my ability to represent my case properly. 10.8 Mr Tredoux and Mr Jordaan then blatantly lied about providing me with such indexed file before the Court Date as recorded on *CT page 93 P1. 10.9 My answer to the Judges question “You do not have a paginated bundle?” was “I do not have a paginated bundle”. Paragraph 3 and 4. 10.10 I will deal with how this played a role in every step of the Court Proceedings as per the CT and how this clearly influenced the Judges Ruling. 11. REPRESENTING MY COMPANIES 11.1 The next stunt that Mr Tredoux performed is to object to me representing my companies in Court, as per the *CT pages 1 and 2, Horizon Group (Pty) Ltd “HG” and Groundswell Developments Africa (Pty) Ltd, “GDA”. 11.2 The Court rules clearly states that I had to be notified of any such objection before the Court date and that the I would then have had the opportunity, as Mr Tredoux disingenuously points out as per page *CT3 “to seek leave to represent my companies by a properly motivated, timeously lodged application” 11.3 So clearly this was a calculated and underhanded stunt that deprived me of seeking timeous permission and as a result the inability to represent my companies, as per the Judge’s statement *CT page 73 11.4 “THAT IS THE LAW AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO DEBATE ABOUT IT”. 11.5 These private companies of mine and myself were the main parties in the transactions under discussion and Co-Respondents / Co-Appeal Applicants in this case. 11.6 As per Navy Two CC v Industrial Zone Limited, Case No: (293/2004), (28 September 2005) the Supreme Court found that a court may permit a company to be represented by its alter ego under certain circumstances. 11.7 The SCA quoted that such a circumstance would be where the director of a company is party to the litigation to which the company is also a party, which is clearly the case here. 11.8 The South African Law Review Group observes that in some cases a person who is the controlling mind of a small corporate entity may know as much about the company’s business and financial affairs as an individual would know of his own, and that the Courts have demonstrated pragmatic willingness, when possible to ensure that justice is served. 12. OBJECTION TO MY HEADS OF ARGUMENT 12.1 The next procedural stunt that Mr Tredoux performed is to object to the bulk of my Heads of Argument as inadmissible. *Court Transcript Pages 3 and 73. 12.2 The paragraphs numbers objected to were as follows, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 79, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,100,101,102, 103, 104, 133, 136, 149,150, 156, 157, 160, 169, 178, 189, 206 and formed the bulk of my Heads of Argument. 12.3 The Judge drew a line through and ruled out these paragraphs on mr Tredoux’s say so without a pause and without any debate on the matter. 12.4 This was again against Court rules. Such objection had to delivered to me beforehand and I would then have had a chance to respond thereon. 12.5 Needless to say if you take away the bulk of someone’s Heads of Argument you are not really giving him much of a chance, so this had another major role to play in the Court proceedings and the Judge’s ruling. 13. SPECIFICS OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THE TRANSCRIPTION 13.1 On page 6 of the CT Mr Tredoux kicks off with a stellar Smoke and Mirrors Act, which by his own definition is aimed confusing all and sundry. 13.2 He succeeds spectacularly in his aim as the Judge, after being bombarded for more than 2 hours of confusing, false and to say the least irrelevant rhetoric, admits that she is totally confused as per page 97 of the Court Transcript. 13.3 It is clear that that Mr Le Roux tried his best to sow confusion about who the parties and entities were to try and prove misrepresentation. 13.4 By admitting that she was confused clearly indicates that the Judge was influenced by this smoke and mirrors performance in her Misrepresentation finding. 13.5 The facts of the matter and the entities involved are clearly spelt out in all the transaction documentation as clearly illustrated in my Answering Affidavit, my Heads of Argument, my Response to the Rule 35 Request plus the facts outlined in this document. 13.6 Each party and entity are clearly identified in each document pertaining to the Property Transaction and there are no excuses or reasons for confusion. 13.7 Mr Tredoux’s next achievement is to convince the Judge that I was not an Estate Agent at the time, as is clearly spelt out in her Reasons for Judgement which I will be dealing with later. Please see 7. THE AGENT which categorically dispels this notion. 13.8 Mr Le Roux’s further allegations, and the Judges agreement with this fact, as per pages 69 and 70 of the Court Transcription, that an Estate Agent requires an Audited Bank Trust Account without which he cannot obtain an FFC, is a patent lie. An Estate Agency, not the Agent, requires an Audited Bank Trust Account. 13.9 It is very clear that Mr Tredoux’s allegations that I was not an Estate Agent and the Judge finding accordingly, despite the hiding and ignoring of evidence, disinformation and lies, forms the cornerstone of her Misrepresentation Ruling as per her Reasons for Judgement. 14. MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS 14.1 Mr Tredoux continues his smoke and mirrors rant and tries to confuse all and sundry about the following subjects, as can be seen throughout the Court Transcription and in so doing trying to make all my actions seem questionable: An Agent versus an Auctioneer, Commission versus Auction Fees, who pays them and when, that all Offers to Purchase should have the same terms and conditions regardless of the Buyer and his Terms of Offer, the Validity of other Offers. 14.2 I am both an Auctioneer and an Estate Agent and I can choose when to use normal sales or Silent Auction rules as the transaction may require. There is no difference between being an Auctioneer or an Agent. An Auctioneer is per definition an Agent, as per the EAAB. The Commission or Auction fee is determined by the type of transaction elected. In a (Silent) Auction the Buyer pays the Auction Fee and in a standard transaction the Seller pays the Commission. 14.3 Mr Tredoux knows all this as well as I do but obviously tries his best with his smoke and mirrors shenanigans to confuse the court starting on page 1 of the CT. 14.4 Then on page 8 of the CT he starts a very long rambling discussion about the Other Offers which he first of all says CB knew nothing about, which is nonsense as they were submitted to her by me and she signed at least one of them as an Offer to Sell as my emails in the Court File illustrates 14.5 Secondly he sinks to a new low claiming that they are fake and fictitious, full well knowing that he hid my evidence from the court. My email correspondence with Potential Buyers and the Offers to Purchase prepared for them specifies their full Names, Addresses, ID Numbers and Contact Details as fully recorded in the Original Court File attacments JPN35-1, JPN 35-2 (ICF pages 260.7 – 260.24.) 14.6 It was really disappointing to experience the Judge falling for all this, hook line and sinker, as her Order and Judgement / Reasons was a word for word rendition of these Allegations with no debating or consideration of my evidenciary documents 15. EMAIL LOGO 15.1 Then Mr Tredoux embarks on the first of dozens of arguments about the fact that I use more than one email Logo. 15.2 There is no law prohibiting the author of an email to use more than one logo under his email. I own the domains and trade names that I advertise this way. 15.3 CB was not confused at all regarding whom she was communicating with. My name “J P Nortje” and my same email address, “jpn.horizon@gmail.com” is on each email to her and all her responses were to me and to this email address. 15.4 I explained this at length to the Judge and reiterated that all parties, entities and terms where clearly spelt out in all the legally binding contracts, such as the AOS, leaving no room for misunderstanding. 15.5 This issue is therefore just another smoke and mirrors attempt at confusion by mr Tredoux and that this somehow proves misrepresentation. 15.6 Unfortunately the Judge gets totally taken in by this irrelevant fact and seem to take this as another major cornerstone proving misrepresentation in the case and states to me on CT page 92 that: “IF YOU AGREE THAT YOU DID THAT, WHY ARE WE HERE” 16. THE CIRCUS 16.1 The Judge then clearly indicates she has no idea what I am talking about regarding my documents, as they had been hidden from the Court by the Tredoux/Jordaan faction by omitting them from “their Bundle” handed to the Judge, and their well planned chaos then erupts in court as the Judge is totally oblivious of my most important documents and or have not read or ignored the contents of the Original Court File, as per her questions throughout her interrogation of me illustrates, for example, 16.1.1 “ where are these documents. 16.1.2 where is your FFC. 16.2 “I have not seen any proof of any company in these papers” 16.3 These Documents are all part of the Original Court File as the facts of the matter are clearly spelt out and all relevant documents attached to my Answering Affidavit, Heads of Argument and Rule 35 Responses. 16.4 At that point of the Court Proceedings It transpires that I was supposed to have been timeously handed a copy of the Indexed File by Mr Jordaan, which he wilfully and calculatingly did not do, and as an individual defending myself I had no pre-knowledge of this requirement. 16.5 As a result the Court hearing became a circus with everyone searching fervently for anything I referred to as per my Original Court File references, as is clearly recorded in the CT. 16.6 This further well planned Obstruction of Justice by Tredoux/Jordaan had a huge impact on the proceedings and in confusing he Judge. 16.7 What made it worse is that they had purposefully omitted my attachments from the abbreviated fake court file “bundle”handed up to the Judge on the opening of proceedings. 16.8 Obstructing of justice is defined in Webster as “the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.” 16.9 So over and above deceitful and willful criminal evidence tampering, the Tredoux/Jordaan faction’s further actions are clearly Obstruction of Justice. 16.10 They succeeded brilliantly with these actions as can be seen by the no contest victory handed them by the Judge. THE HONOUABLE JUDGE MS FORTIUIN PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR HER RULING 17. B. COMMON BACKGROUND FACTS 17.1 I Agree with paragraph 4. 17.2 Paragraph 5 is not factual. CB was not aware of the state of the Property at the time of the initial discussion with the Estate Agents and I did not agree with this pricing. The Actual Sequence of Events, the State of the Property and the Value of the Property became evident during the Marketing Efforts over five months and are documented in Paragarphs 11 to 57 of my Heads of Argument, paragraphs 4 to 55 of my Answering Affidavit (110 -165) as well as in the the following attachments marked JPN1 (166), JPN2(168), JPN3(169), JPN4(170), JPN5(171), JPN6(172) JPN7(173), JPN8(174), JPN9(175-181), JPN10(182), JPN11(184). (Indexed Court File (ICF) page numbers in brackets) please see 4.BACKGROUND, 17.3 I am in agreement with paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. 17.4 Paragraph 9 is total falsehood and misrepresentation of the facts, it was not my version or opinion that the Property was at best worth R3m, but it is clearly documented what the market feedback was and the only offers even considered by potential buyers were none over R3m, as can be clearly seen in my Answering Affidavit and Attachments as outlined above. 17.5 I agree with paragraph 10. 18. C THE AGREEMENT OF SALE 18.1 Clause 11 is a total falsehood and misrepresentation of the facts. The background to the AOS transaction and the entities involved are clearly spelt out in the following: 4. BACKGROUND, 5. STATUS QUO, 6. THE AOS, 7. THE AGENT, 8. THE PURCHASER AND 9. THE CONTRACTOR. 18.2 It is clear that I was the Agent and not the Purchaser. 18.3 Everyone acted fully within their rights as individuals, representatives of their entities and their profession and all this is clearly spelt out on the AOS cover page attached marked “E” and all the of the documents submitted to the Court by myself. 18.4 The attempt by CB’s legal team attempt to create identity confusion with a two hour long smoke and mirrors act is a clear attempt to hijack the R3.5m project. 18.5 Clause 12 is not correct. I submitted a number of Offers to Purchase to Interested Buyers as per Original Court File attacments JPN2 (168), JPN3(169), JPN4(170) and JPN5(171) which I did discuss with CB as per my ongoing emails and market feedback, and she signed some as an Offer to Sell, but not one Buyer was prepared to put a pen to paper, so No Offers Signed by a Purchaser were received despite five months of advertising on Property 24 and showing the Property to a large number of prospective buyers. 18.6 The description in this paragraph of how the AOS came about leaves a very wrong impression, the real facts and background to the AOS is as outlined above and as per 4. BACKGROUND and 5. STATUS QUO 19. D THE LAW OF MISREPRESENTATION 19.1 I disagree with the Honourable Judge’s interpretation of the law of misrepresentation and that it applies in this case. 19.2 A misrepresentation is an untrue statement of fact which is relied upon by the aggrieved party, which induces him to enter into the property transaction or contract and as a result, he/she suffers loss. So a misrepresentation must be a statement of fact. 19.3 Misrepresentation in real estate constitutes the provision of false statements relating to a property to deceive the Buyer. In fraudulent misrepresentation, Sellers knowingly conceal Property information / defects from the Buyer. 19.4 Misrepresentation is couched in the South African Consumer Protection Law 19.5 In Property Sale transaction the Buyer is the Consumer and the Seller the provider of goods. 19.6 Therefore first of all, CB the Seller made major misrepresentations relating to the Property and the AOS. 19.6.1 She claimed it was worth R5.5m (it was hardly worth R3m) 19.6.2 She claimed that it needed only minor repairs. (It took more than R3.5m to repair and renovate) 19.6.3 She claimed that she would give Vacant Beneficial Occupation to the Buyer within 7 days. (It took almost a year) 19.6.4 She undertook to stand by the terms of the AOS. (She has blocked progress on the work to be done via her lawyer and is trying to hijack the Project via this court case) 19.7 The Agent is not a party to the AOS and all the relevant facts are stated as per the AOS. 19.8 The Purchaser is the Consumer and not the provider of goods and made no false statement about the Property. 19.9 In order to prove misrepresentation in court, the innocent party must demonstrate that a false statement of fact was made, that the statement induced them to enter into the contract, and that they suffered a loss as a result of the misrepresentation. 19.10 Neither myself or the Purchaser made any false statements and CB has suffered no loss, which are not of her own making or force majeure, and there are therefore no proof of misrepresentation. 20. E. VARIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS 20.1 Paragraph 13 is totally false, I was fully entitled to act as an Estate Agent. Please see 7.THE AGENT. 20.2 The EAAB case law referred to by the Honourable Judge MS Fortuin, LEK versus EAAB, is totally outdated, ie from 1979, and the circumstances has no bearing on this case. 20.3 Please see THE AGENT for relevant case Law. 20.4 Paragraphs 14 and 15 are not factual. I am not the Purchaser but the Agent and Service Provider. My interest in the transaction was to earn a commission from the sale as an Agent well as to generate work for my building company by offering to perform the repairs and renovations for the Purchaser. The nature and Identity of the Agent, the Purchaser and the Service Provider is clearly spelt out in 7.THE AGENT, 8.THE PURCHASER, 9. THE CONTRACTOR 20.5 I was clearly not the Purchaser and there was therefore no hidden interest of mine not disclosed to the Seller that could have been to the Seller’s detriment. 20.6 There is therefore patently no misrepresentation. 20.7 Paragraph 16 is not factual. The Seller knows full well that she had granted Beneficial Vacant Occupation to the Purchaser to do Repairs and Renovations, that substantial work had been done on the property, resulting in a builders lien, which she was informed of, and that over and above the Vacant Beneficial Occupation still being valid the Contractor have also taken possession of the Property. 20.8 All of this is per AOS Agreement and normal business practices. The Seller is therefore not the innocent party and have suffered no loss but in fact the one that is breaching the agreement and causing the Purchaser / Appellants huge losses to the tune of R3.5m, so in fact the Purchaser is the innocent party suffering losses due to the Sellers actions. Please see 6.THE AOS, 8.THE PURCHASER, 9.THE CONTRACTOR and 7.THE AGENT. 21. F. PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL 21.1 Paragraph 17, 18 and 19 are misrepresentations of the facts. It was not a requirement of any agreement that the Purchaser had to inform the Seller of whom she was going to use to perform the repairs and renovation work or the terms thereof and the Purchaser was obviously not going to do the work herself. 21.2 The claim that the above constituted abuse towards the Seller is therefore totally without foundation. 21.3 The Monetary Quantum of the Repair and Renovation Contract is clearly spelt out and recorded so the statement that there is no proof of costs is false. 21.4 There is therefore no grounds for piercing the corporate veil. The fact the the Judge admitted that she had not read or taken note of the proof of existence of my companies, which was clearly part of the Court record as discussed in 8.THE PURCHASER and 9. THE CONTRACTOR. 21.5 Paragraph 22 is quite dualistic. It is common cause that a Contractor obtains a Builders Lien on a Property when the property was improved by the Contractor and in this case it was per formal contract and formal notice of such Lien. 21.6 Regardless of wishing away the existence of Horizon Group, either Horizon Group, or me as its alter ego, have made some R3.5m worth of improvement to the Property, which is either for the benefit of the Purchaser or the Owner. 21.7 Therefore, if all else fails, there is also an Enrichment Lien against CB 22. G. THE CESSION 22.1 Paragraph 23 is in fact incorrect. An Estate Agent is not one of the Parties in an Alienation of Land Transaction but as defined by the Estate Agency Profession, a FACILITATOR, and not a Party to the Agreement, as the parties are the Seller and the Purchaser. The Purchaser was within the defines of the AOS contract to CEDE the contract to Horizon and or myself as we were in fact third parties in the AOS. The roles of the individuals and entities are spelt out in 6.THE AOS. 22.2 Ms Du Plessis on behalf of GDA, the Purchaser, had the written authority to execute any action or contract pursuant to the AOS on behalf of GDA. See THE PURCHASER. 22.3 She therefore had the authority and right, on behalf of GDA, to execute the AOS, to enter into a Repairs and Renovations Contract with Horizon, to pledge the AOS as surety and to Cede the AOS to Horizon. Please see THE PURCHASER and THE CONTRACTOR. 23. H. THE OCCUPATION 23.1 Paragraph 27 and 28 is totally understating the enormity of the Project and the responsibility to secure the property as can be clearly seen in the Scope of the Project, which CB was fully aware of. See Project Scope and Cost outlined in the R&R Contract Original Court Fille attachment JPN16, ICF page number 189 – 192. 23.2 The AOS clearly gives the Purchaser Beneficial and Vacant Occupation. That situation has not changed. Please see 6. THE AOS. 23.3 The Purchaser by implication hasa the right to have Contractors on site and the Contractor needs to be paid. 23.4 The Scope of the Project is clear to See from the R&R Contract JPN 16 (189 – 192) and the Contractor has a Lien over the Property until such time as he is paid, either by the Purchaser when this AOS is fulfilled, or by the Owner as per an Enrichment claim. 23.5 The Project Progress was in fact held up by CB not being able to give Vacant Occupation for most of 2020, Covid in 2021 and CB trying to Hijack the development since 2022. The statement that the Project completion is unilaterally in the hands of the Purchaser or myself is therefore clearly not correct. 23.6 In Paragraph 29 the Honourable Judge seems to be in agreement with the fact the setting aside of the AOS and Builders Lien will disadvantage the Appellants to the value of cost of the project, which amounts to some R3.5m, and that the CB will in fact be liable for this. 23.7 So first of all the APELLANTS and the PURCHASER are the disadvantaged parties and the setting aside of the AOS is in no one’s interest, least of alL CB’s. 23.8 The affirmation of the AOS and Builders Lien will allow the Purchaser to conclude the transaction as per the AOS and pay CB the Purchase Price of the Property. 24. SUMMARY (PRAYERS ) 24.1 The Court’s indulgence would be appreciated if attachments “E” to “K” can be allowed as they are key documents for our Application of Appeal Argument and as can be seen from the above the Court File was tampered with and documents hidden by the CB legal team and or ignored by the Judge 24.2 As per the above, it should be clear that there are a substantial number of aspects and evidenciary documemts of this case which I believe will be seen more clearly and in a different light when considered by a different Court and that such Court would find for the Appeal Applicants. 24.3 The purpose of this Application is therefore to ask the Honourable Court to grant Leave to Appeal against the whole judgement and orders made by Honourable Judge Fortuin on 4 September 2023 in the High Court Western Cape Division. A copy of this order is attached marked “A”. A copy of the Judgement is attached marked “B” 24.4 Leave to Appeal is sought from this Court in terms of section 17(2)(b) as the Honourable Judge Fortuin dismissed the Application for Leave to Appeal on 17 April 2024 in the High Court Western Cape Division. A copy of the order of dimissal is attached marked “C” A letter of confirmation by the Registrar of the High Court Western Cape, that the Judgement have not been forthcoming is attached marked “D” Dated at Cape Town on _________ May 2024 ______________________________ JEAN PIERRE NORTJE On behalf of the First to Third Appeal Applicants 30 Mount Nelson avenue Sea Point Email jpn.horizon@gmail.com 082 629 84956 TO: THE REGISTRAR THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN AND TO: ATTORNEY FOR THE APPEAL RESPONDENT

SCA ALTA DENIED

Supreme Court of Appeal, Registrar’s Office • PO Box 258, Bloemfontein, 9300 • c/o Elizabeth- & President Brand Street, Bloemfontein • Tel (051) 4127 400 • Fax (051) 4127 449 • www.supremecourtofappeal.qov.za Mr/Ms APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD & { OTHERS v C J BROWN With reference to the application lodged in this office on 08 MAY 2024 this Court orderecforTK JULY 2024 that the application be dismissed as per attached order:- youfiUafthftiHy2\^ REGISTRAR REGISTERED POST (H/B/D/O) YOUR REF: 16215/2022 Fortuin J (Court a quo) Registrar of the High Court Private Bag X 9020 CAPE TOWN 8000 Copy for your information. SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 555/2024 WCC CASE NO: 16215/2022 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICES MABINDLA-BOQWANA JA AND MANTAME AJA On the 11th JULY 2024 In the application between: GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD 1st Applicant JEAN PIERRE NORTJE 2nd Applicant HORIZON GROUP (PTY) LTD 3rd Applicant and CATHERINE JUDY BROWN Respondent Having considered the Notice of Motion and the other documents filed. IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Condonation as applied for is granted. 2. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal and there is no 2024 -07- 1 5 SCA-002 ‘ OF THE SUPREME CO!.’