HIGH COURT ALTA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 16215/22 In the matter between: CATHERINE JUDY BROWN Applicant and GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD 1st Respondent Registration Number 2017/331447/07 JEAN PIERRE NORTJE 2nd Respondent HORIZON GROUP (PTY) LTD 3rd Respondent Registration Number 2018/537105/07 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE that the Applicant in the above matter (becomes the Respondent) in this Application For Leave to Appeal and the Respondent in the above matter (which herein becomes the Applicant). The Applicant hereby applies for Leave To Appeal the entirety of the Order granted by Honourable Judge Ms Fortuin in this matter in the High Court of Cape Town on 4 September 2023. The Argument for the Appeal is set out hereunder. Signed and dated this ……… day of January 2024 at Cape Town. __________________________________ JEAN PIERRE NORTJE On behalf of the First to Third Respondents 30 Mount Nelson avenue Sea Point Email jpn.horizon@gmail.com 082 629 84956 TO: THE REGISTRAR HIGH COURT CAPE TOWN ARGUMENT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (In this Argument I will Refer to the Applicant as the Applicant in the Court case and the Respondents as the Respondents in the Court case or as myself, as the Second Respondent in person. I will also be referring to my attachments as per my document references in the Original Court File as the Original Court File have not been indexed and I have also not been handed an Index of the doctored Court File by the Applicant’s Attorney.) The references are and attachments to this document are excerpts from my Answering Affidavit dated 14 October 2022, and my Respondents Heads of Argument Filed on the 28 September 2023.xxxxxxxx I believe that another Court would find that. 1. There are no valid or legal reasons to set aside the Agreement of Sale AOS between the Purchaser and the Seller/Applicant on 21 March 2020 a copy of which is attached as JPN 9 2. That the Property Occupation given by the Seller/Applicant to the Purchaser and the Contractor/Third Respondent to perform the Repairs and Renovations is valid. 3. That the Builders Lien of the Third Respondent is valid and the possession enforceable. My belief is based on the following facts: The Honourable Judge Fortuin gave the following reasons for her Order, which will be dealt with per heading and paragraph: B. COMMON BACKGROUND FACTS I Agree with paragraph 4. Paragraph 5 is not factual, the Applicant was not aware of the state of the Property at the time of the initial discussion with the Estate Agents and the Second Respondent did not agree with this pricing. The actual Sequence of Events, the STATE OF THE PROPERTY and the VALUE OF THE PROPERTY which became evident during the Marketing efforts over five months are documented in the following attachments: PROPERTY VALUE JPN 100. THE STATE OF THE PROPERTY JPN 101 I am in agreement with paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 Paragraph 9 is misleading it was not my version or opinion that the Property was at best worth R3m, but it is clearly spelt out what the market feedback was and the Offers attempted in the following attachments. PROPERTY VALUE JPN A100. THE STATE OF THE PROPERTY JPN 101 AOS BACKGROUND JPN 103 I agree with paragraph 10. C THE AGREEMENT OF SALE Clause 11 is a misrepresentation of the facts. The background to the AOS transaction and the entities involved are clearly spelt out in the AOS BACKGROUND JPN 103. ROLE OF THE PURCHASER ROLE OF THE ENTITIES ESTATE AGENT STATUS OF JP NORTJE The Applicant was the Seller. Ms Du Plessis was the Purchaser on behalf of a company she had entered an agreement into to take over. I was the Agent. The Purchaser entered into a Renovation and Repairs contract with the Horizon Group, which was fully within her rights as per the AOS, and there was no requirement to inform he Applicant of whom was going to do the actual work.. Everyone acted fully within their rights as individuals, representatives of their entities and their profession. This is clearly spelt out in the AOS and all the of the documents submitted to the Court by the Respondents. I believe that another court would find that these are the facts. The attempt by the Applicant’s legal team to create identity confusion with a three hour long smoke and mirrors act is a clear attempt to hijack a R3.5m project. Clause 12 is not correct. I submitted a number of Offers to Purchase to Interested Buyers, which I did discuss with the Applicant as per my correspondence xxxxxxxxxxxxx but not one was prepared to put a pen to paper so no Offers to Purchase were received after five months of advertising and showing the Property. 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 attached “AOS Background” xxxxxxxxxxxx. D THE LAW OF MISREPRESENTATION I disagree with the Honourable Judge’s interpretation of the law of misrepresentation and that it applies in this case. See Misrepresentation attached as xxxxxxxxxxx E. VARIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 13 is not, factual, I was fully entitled to act as an Estate Agent. Please see attachment ESTATE AGENT STATUS OF JP NORTJE JPN 102 as well as attachments xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The case law referred to by the Honourable Judge MS Fortuin, LA versus EAAB, is totally outdated, ie from 1979, and the circumstances has no bearing on this case. Paragraphs 14 and 16 are not factual. See “AOS Background” attached as xxxxxxxxxxxx. Paragraph 16 is not factual, See Occupation xxxxxxxxxxx It is therefore clear that another court would find in the light of these facts that there was no misrepresentation by the Respondents. F. PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL Paragraph 17, 18 and 19 are misrepresentation of the facts. See “AOS Background” attached as xxxxxxxxxxxx. See the Project Background attached as XXXXXXXXX I believe that another Court would find after perusing the facts that Piercing the Corporate Veil is not applicable or justified in this case. 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. See Builder Lien attached as xxxxxxxxxxxxxx G. THE CESSION 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 the Second Respondent as he was in fact a third party. The roles of the individuals and entities are spelt out in the“AOS Background” attached as xxxxxxxxxxxx and Ms Du Plessis had the written authority to execute any action or contract pursuant to the AOS. See LOA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Furthermore she had pledged the AOS as surety to the Third Respondent for the work done to the Property. H. THE OCCUPATION Paragraph 27 and 28 is 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 the Applicant was fully aware of. See Project Scope xxxxxxxxx See See Occupation xxxxxxxx The Project Progress was in fact held up by the Defendant not being able to give Vacant Occupation for most of 2020, Covid in 2021 and the Applicant trying to Hijack the development since 2022. The statement that the Project completion is unilaterally in the hands of the Second Respondent is clearly not the fact. In numerous settlement agreement the Second Respondent asked for three unfettered months to complete the project which was rejected by the Defendants legal team. See settlement Proposals XXXXXXXXXXX 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 Respondents to the value of cost of the project, which amounts to some R3.5m, See Poject Scope xxxxxxxxx and that the Applicant will in fact be liable for this. So first of all the RESPONDENTS and the PURCHASER are the disadvantaged parties and the Setting aside of the AOS and the Builder’s Lien is in no one’s interest, least of all the Applicant’s.. The affirmation of the AOS and Builders Lien will allow the Purchaser to conclude the transaction as per the AOS and pay the Applicant the Purchase Price of the Property. SUMMARY As per the above, it should be clear that there are a substantial number of aspects of this case which I believe will be seen in a different light when considered by a different Court. I therefore request that the Honourable MS Judge Fortuin Grant me Leave to Appeal. I would also like to reserve my rights to present to a Court of Appeal the following factors which I believe influenced the Court Proceedings and the resultant Order. 1. The Court File was tampered with and I reserve the right to present my evidence electronically to a Court of Appeal. 2. I reserve the right to submit any and all evidence/items from the Original Court Record, Properly Indexed, plus any content from the Transcription of the Court Proceedings to a Court of Appeal and to do this electronically where applicable. 3. I also reserve the right to present to a Court of Appeal, the conduct and noncompliance with Court rules/the law, of the Applicants legal team, and how that impacted the court hearing and its outcome.

HIFGH COURT ALTA GROK

HC APPEAL DENIAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case No. 16215/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CAPETOWN: WEDNESDAY 17 APRIL 2024 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE FORTUIN In the matter between: GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD 1st Applicant JEANNE PIERRE NORTJE 2nd Applicant HORIZON GROUP (PTY) LTD 3rd Applicant And CATHERINE JUDY BROW Respondent Having heard the Legal Representative for the Applicants & Respondent and having read the documents filed of record; IT IS ORDERED: That the application for Leave To Appeal is dismissed with costs. BY ORDER OF THE COURT aFR,CA CAPE TOWN- REGISTRAR OF Private Bag X9020. Cape iown COURT 2021! -O’!- 2 6 WCD-OOtt Jean Pierre Norije 30 Mount Nelson A REGISTRAR OTTHE AFR,CA rr r» • ■ TOWN venue, Sea Point /mdz IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case No. 16215/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CAPETOWN: WEDNESDAY 17 APRIL 2024 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE FORTUIN In the matter between: GROUNDSWELL DEVELOPMENTS AFRICA (PTY) LTD 1st Applicant JEANNE PIERRE NORTJE 2nd Applicant HORIZON GROUP (PTY) LTD 3rd Applicant And CATHERINE JUDY BROW Respondent Having heard the Legal Representative for the Applicants & Respondent and having read the documents filed of record; IT IS ORDERED: That the application for Leave To Appeal is dismissed with costs. BY ORDER OF THE COURT aFR,CA CAPE TOWN- REGISTRAR OF Private Bag X9020. Cape iown COURT 2021! -O’!- 2 6 WCD-OOtt Jean Pierre Norije 30 Mount Nelson A REGISTRAR OTTHE AFR,CA rr r» • ■ TOWN venue, Sea Point /mdz