1

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG

CASE N0: In the matter between: YAO KOUASSI PHILIPPE KOUAKOU MABEL MATSHIDISO KOUAKOU AND ABSA BANK LIMITED REGISTRAR OF DEEDS PRETORIA MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 1st RESPONDENT 2nd RESPONDENT 3rd RESPONDENT 1ST APPLICANT 2ND APPLICANT

07/30487

FILING SHEET
INDEX
NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE 10(3) OF THE UNIFORM RULES 1st APPLICANTS AFFIDAVIT 2nd APPLICANTS CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVIT ANNEXURE:
YKPA17: YKPA18: 1st Respondents Summons Deeds Report confirming current ownership of the alleged property

P3-6 P 7 - 18 P 19 -20 P 21 - 28
P 21 - 27 P 28

DATED AT DE DEUR ON THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

1st Applicant: P KOUAKOU PLOT 17 ERF 323 KOEDOE STREET DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED VEREENIGING 1884 Cell n0. 083 729 2441 Email: kykphilippe@yahoo.co.nz

TO:

THE REGISTRAR OF THE ABOVE HONOURABLE COURT

AND TO:

JAY MOTHOBI INCORPORATED [1ST Respondents Attorneys] 9 Arnold Road Rosebank Ref: Mr A Strydom/Lenah

Received a copy hereof on this the ../...../ 2013 at (time) .. Signature .

AND TO:

THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS PRETORIA [2nd Respondent] Merino Building Cnr Bosman & Pretorius Street Pretoria

Received a copy hereof on this the ../...../ 2013 at (time) .. Signature .

AND TO:

THE MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY [3rd Respondent] Cnr. Mitchell & Junius Street Meyerton

Received a copy hereof on this the ../...../ 2013 at (time) .. Signature .

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG

CASE N0: In the matter between: YAO KOUASSI PHILIPPE KOUAKOU MABEL MATSHIDISO KOUAKOU AND ABSA BANK LIMITED REGISTRAR OF DEEDS PRETORIA MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 1st RESPONDENT 2nd RESPONDENT 3rd RESPONDENT 1ST APPLICANT 2ND APPLICANT

07/30487

NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE 10(3) OF THE UNIFORM RULES

BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE THAT the applicants intend to make an application on the _______________________ for an order in the following terms: i. Joining the proclaimed purchaser, namely RJ Briedenhann, as the 4th respondent, to this matter and to the applicants application dated the 04th of October 2012 Costs Further & Alternative Relief

ii. iii.

BE PLEASED TO TAKE FURTHER NOTE THAT the application is grounded upon the following:

Legal Basis: 1) Rule 10 (3) of the Uniform Rules, which reads: Several defendants may be sued in one action either jointly, jointly and severally, separately or in the alternative, whenever the question arising between them or any of them and the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs depends upon the determination of substantially the same question of law or fact which, if such defendants were sued separately, would arise in each separate action. 2) Section 70 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944, which reads: a sale in execution shall not, after registration of transfer, be liable to be impeached as against the purchaser in good faith and without notice of any defect; alternatively, a sale in execution shall, after registration of transfer, be liable to be impeached as against the purchaser in bad faith and with notice of defect Factual basis: 3) Fraud & Forgery: the proclaimed purchaser, RJ Briedenhann, did not purchase the alleged property: he was, actually, fraudulently undersigned as the purchaser of the alleged property as reflected on the Conditions of Sales [YKPA5 and YKPA6 - as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion] on records. 4) Misrepresentation: the proclaimed purchaser lied under oath confirming, in paragraph 3.2 of his founding affidavit in his High Court Proceeding under Case Number 09/12972 [YKPA16 - as attached to applicants Replying Affidavit] that he personally purchased the alleged property in execution on the 8th of November 2007 whereas he did not. 5) Interest: the proclaimed purchaser is the current register or bondholder of/on the alleged property [see YKPA 17 hereto attached]; hence, an interested party in all matters regarding the alleged property. Material Facts: 6) YKPA5: Conditions of Sale provided by the proclaimed purchaser in 2009, in his High Court proceedings under Case n0. 09/12972, marked YKPA16, to prove his personal purchase of the alleged

property on the 08 of November 2007; this annexure is attached to the

Applicants Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit.

7) YKPA6: Conditions of Sale provided by the 1st respondent in 2010, in current High Court proceedings [i.e. 07/30487], to prove its sale of the alleged property on the 08 of November 2007 to the proclaimed purchaser; this annexure is attached to the Applicants Notice
of Motion and Founding Affidavit.

8) YKPA16: Proclaimed purchasers High Court proceedings under Case Number 09/12972 where he confirms have purchased the alleged property; this annexure is attached to the Applicants Replying
Affidavit.

9) YKPA18: Deeds Report confirming current ownership of the alleged property and the interest of the owner thereof in this matter; this
annexure is hereto attached.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT the affidavit of the applicants and annexure hereto attached will be used in support to this application. BE FURTHER PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE THAT due to the lack of representation/correspondent within the 8 km of the courtyard, the applicants will accept service of all documents electronically at kykphilippe@yahoo.co.nz BE FURTHERMORE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE THAT should the respondents intend to oppose this application, the respondents are required to deliver a Notice of Intention to Oppose within 5 [five] days upon receipt hereof and thereafter deliver an Opposing Affidavit within 10 [ten] days after the expiry of the period for the filing of the Notice of Intention to Oppose. BE FINALLY ADVISED THAT if no such Notice of Intention to Oppose is delivered as aforesaid, the application will proceed on unopposed basis on the ___________________ or so soon thereafter as counsel for the Applicants may be heard. DATED AT DE DEUR ON THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

1st Applicant: P KOUAKOU PLOT 17 ERF 323 KOEDOE STREET DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED VEREENIGING 1884 Cell n0. 083 729 2441 Email: kykphilippe@yahoo.co.nz

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG

CASE N0: In the matter between: YAO KOUASSI PHILIPPE KOUAKOU MABEL MATSHIDISO KOUAKOU AND ABSA BANK LIMITED REGISTRAR OF DEEDS PRETORIA MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 1st RESPONDENT 2nd RESPONDENT 3rd RESPONDENT 1ST APPLICANT 2ND APPLICANT

07/30487

1st APPLICANTS AFFIDAVIT

I. INTRODUCTION
I, the undersigned, YAO KOUASSI PHILIPPE ARMAND KOUAKOU
ID N0. 721219 5366 186

do hereby make an oath and state as follows: 1. I am an adult male and an independent Film-Maker residing at the alleged property based at PORTION 17 ERF 323 OF THE DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED 1884 in EXTENT 8261 m2 situated in the province of GAUTENG. I am the 1st applicant in this application and I am duly authorized to depose to this affidavit. 2. The facts herein contained are, unless otherwise, indicated or apparent by the content hereof, within my personal knowledge and to the best of my belief, both true and correct.

II. NATURE OF MATTER:

3. This is a Property Hijacking & Racketeering matter -

III. ALLEGED PROPERTY

4. The alleged property is the immovable property based at PORTION 17 ERF 323 OF THE DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED 1884 in EXTENT 8261 m2 situated in the province of GAUTENG.

IV. PARTIES
5. I am the 1st applicant in this application: I am the actual owner of the alleged property and actual bondholder on the alleged property 6. The 2nd applicant is my wife: also actual owner and bondholder on the alleged property 7. The 1st respondent is ABSA BANK LIMITED: the Execution Creditor & Seller of the alleged property/land: its a public company duly registered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa, carrying on business at Level 23 of Sanlam Centre, at cnr Jeppe & Von Weilleigh Street in Johannesburg, and having branch offices in Vereeniging. 8. The 2nd respondent is the REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF PRETORIA: its the institution in charge of Transfer & Registration of immovable property/land into names: its a government office established in terms of the Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937 with its offices at Merino Building, at cnr Pretorius & Bosman Street in Pretoria. 9. The 3rd respondent is the MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY: the Local council within which jurisdiction the alleged property is situated. Its a Local Municipality established by virtue of the provisions of the Local Government Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 with its head office at Mitchell Street in Meyerton.

V. THE MATTER:
10. Its a Property Hijacking & Racketeering matter, where - the 1st respondent maliciously obtained a Default Judgment on the 05th June 2007 as against the applicants for arrears on mortgage loan/bond account, attached the applicants home in spite of the applicants effort to make arrangement towards payment of the arrears, proclaimed the applicants home sold/purchased in execution on the 08th November 2007 to a certain RJ Briedenhann whereas it was not and further boldly & malicious transferred, regardless of the existence of this matter [i.e. 07/30487], the applicants home into the names of the proclaimed purchaser, who in turn harassed the applicants with Trespassing, Damage to Property, Defamation of Character, Eviction [including Water & Electricity Disconnection] and further Threats & Prosecutions.

VI. CURRENT APPLICATION 11. This current application is an interlocutory application for Joinder. In this application, the applicants seek an order joining the proclaimed purchaser, RJ Briedenhann, to this matter and to the applicants application dated the 04th of October 2012.

VII. GROUND(S) FOR CURRENT APPLICATION 12. This current application is legal grounded on the following:(a) Legal Basis 1) Rule 10 (3) of the Uniform Rules, which reads: Several defendants may be sued in one action either jointly, jointly and severally, separately or in the alternative, whenever the question arising between them or any of them and the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs depends upon the determination of substantially the same question of law or fact which, if such defendants were sued separately, would arise in each separate action.

10

2) Section 70 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944, which reads: a sale in execution shall not, after registration of transfer, be liable to be impeached as against the purchaser in good faith and without notice of any defect; alternatively, a sale in execution shall, after registration of transfer, be liable to be impeached as against the purchaser in bad faith and with notice of defect (b) Factual Basis 3) Fraud & Forgery: the proclaimed purchaser, RJ Briedenhann, did not purchase the alleged property as proclaimed: he was, actually, fraudulently undersigned as the purchaser of the alleged property. 4) Misrepresentation: the proclaimed purchaser blatantly lied under oath confirming, in paragraph 3.2 of his founding affidavit under his High Court Case Number 09/12972 [YKPA16 as attached to applicants Replying Affidavit [ARA]] that he personally purchased the alleged property in execution on the 8th of November 2007. 5) Interest: the proclaimed purchaser is the current register or bondholder of/on the alleged property; hence, an interested party in all matters regarding the alleged property. (c) Material Facts 13. The applicants rely upon the under-mentioned material facts & evidences to prove the allegations made herein: 13.1 YKPA5: Conditions of Sale as provided by the proclaimed purchaser in 2009, in his High Court proceedings 09/12972 [marked YKPA16], to prove his purchase of the alleged property on the 08 of November 2007. This annexure is attached to the applicants Notice
of Motion and Founding Affidavit.

13.2 YKPA6:

Conditions of Sale as provided by the 1st respondent in 2010, in current High Court proceedings 07/30487, to prove its sale of the alleged property on the 08 of November 2007 to the

11

proclaimed purchaser. This annexure is attached to the applicants Notice

of Motion and Founding Affidavit.

13.3 YKPA16: Proclaimed purchasers High Court proceedings under Case Number 09/12972 where he confirms have purchased the alleged property. This annexure is attached to the applicants Replying
Affidavit.

13.4 YKPA18: Deeds Report confirming current ownership of the alleged property and the interest of the owner thereof in this matter. This
annexure is hereto attached.

VIII. CAUSE OF ACTION: Fraud & Forgery, Misrepresentation, Interest 14. The whole cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Vereeniging Magistrates Court and over the alleged property based at PORTION 17 ERF 323 OF THE DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED 1884 in EXTENT 8261 m2 situated in the province of GAUTENG 15. The alleged property is proclaimed is pro-claimed by the 1st respondent and confirmed by the proclaimed purchaser, RJ Briedenhann, to have been sold/purchased in execution on the 8th of November 2007 whereas it was not; and in pursuance of the proclaimed sale, the alleged property was transferred, by the 2nd respondent, into the names of the proclaimed purchaser, RJ Briedenhann, on the 13th of August 2008. 16. The applicants are the current occupiers, previous registered owners & actual mortgagees of the alleged property whereas the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann, on the other hand, is the current registered owner or bondholder of the alleged property and hence an interested party in all matters regarding the alleged property. 17. The applicants allege that: 17.1 the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann did not purchase the alleged property although so proclaimed: he was actually fraudulently under-signed as the purchaser of the alleged property.

12

17.2 the transfer [proceeded by the 1st respondents and concluded by 2nd respondent] of the alleged property into the names of the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann falls out to be unlawful based upon Rule 43(13) of the Magistrates Court Rules which entitles only properties SOLD in execution to be transferred into the names of the purchasers and the fact that the property was never sold to the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann 17.3 the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann lied under oath, in his High Court Application for Eviction [of the Applicants herein] under Case number 09/12972 17.4 the proclaimed sale in execution of the alleged property is liable to be impeached with fraud as against both the sheriff and the proclaimed purchaser based upon Section 70 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944. 18. Therefore, the applicants seek an order instructing the 2nd respondent to retransfer the alleged property into their [applicants] names. 19. Unfortunately, the proclaimed purchaser & current registered owner/bond holder was not joined as a party to this matter in its opening nor to the applicants application dated the 04th of October 2012. 20. HENCE - by reasons of his interest(s) into the alleged property as a registered owner/bondholder and in order to enable him [the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann] to answer the allegations against him in the applicants application dated the 04th of October 2012, is this current application for Joinder, in terms of Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules, brought before this Honourable Court seeking an order joining the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann to this matter and to the applicants application dated the 04th of October 2012.

IX. BACKGROUND TO CURRENT APPLICATION Applicants Purchase of Alleged Property & Bond With 1st Respondent 21. We [the Applicants] purchased the alleged property in 2004 through a loan from the 1st respondent and in 2005 the alleged property was registered into our [the Applicants] names and the bond account number 8060540389 was opened - [see YKPA1 - as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012].

13

Bond Arrears & 1st Respondent Legal Proceeding Under the Vereeniging Magistrates Court Case N0. 07/4563 22. In the course of time, we [the applicants] fell into arrears and a result thereof the aforementioned bond account was referred to the 1st respondents attorneys, namely De Klerk Vermaak & Partners, who instituted legal proceedings as against us [the applicants] under the Vereeniging Magistrates court Case N0. 07/4563. [See 1st
respondents Summons marked YKPA17 hereto attached]

Judgment by Default & Proclaimed Sale of Alleged Property 23. Despite our [the applicants] effort to make an arrangement [see YKPA13 - as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012] towards the settlement of the said arrears due - as per ANNEXURE C of the 1st respondents summons - and whereas payment was being made into the bond account, the 1st respondents attorneys approached the Vereeniging Magistrates Court on the 5th June 2007 without notifying us [the applicants] and maliciously obtained a Judgment by Default as against us [the applicants]; and, a Warrant of Execution as against our [the applicants] home was issued on even/same day. 24. In pursuance of the aforesaid Writ of Execution and despite our [the applicants] effort to enable/make an arrangement towards the settlement of the total amount of arrears due, the 1st respondent attached our home [the alleged property] and further proclaimed our [the applicants] home, the alleged property, sold in execution to a certain RJ Briedenhann, on the 8th November 2007. Intrusion of Proclaimed Purchaser into Alleged Property 25. On or about the 13th November 2007, the proclaimed purchaser, namely RJ Briedenhann, trespassed over our home [the alleged property] with a letter [see YKPA3 as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012] claiming to have purchased our home [the alleged property], on the 8th November 2007, in a sale in execution and further requested us to vacate our home [the alleged property] on the ground that he was the new owner; yet, our home [the alleged property] was not as yet transferred into the proclaimed purchasers name by that time.

14

Applicants First Application 26. Thereupon, we [the applicants] instituted legal proceeding in this court, under this case number, on the 28th of November 2007, for interdict praying for an order in the following terms: (i) (ii) (iii) Interdicting ABSA Bank from selling the alleged property Interdicting the Registrar of Deeds of Pretoria from transferring our home, the alleged property, into the names of any buyer Interdicting the Midvaal Local Municipality, the 3rd respondent, from allowing eviction from its area

27. I shall further stress that by the time the abovementioned application was made, the property was still registered into the names of the applicants; hence, there was no obligation to joined any proclaimed purchaser to the matter and application. Proclaimed Sale & Transfer of Alleged Property into Proclaimed Purchasers names 28. Subsequent to the proclaimed sale/purchase, the 1st respondent proceeded with the transfer of our home [the alleged property] into the names of the proclaimed purchaser regardless of the existence of this matter and on the 13th of August 2008 our [the applicants] home was registered, by the 2nd respondent, into the name of the proclaimed Purchaser, namely RJ Briedenhann. Applicants Harassment by Proclaimed Purchaser 29. Thereupon, the proclaimed purchaser, namely RJ Briedenhann, started harassing us [the applicants] with Trespassing, Damage to Property, Defamation of Character, Eviction [including Water & Electricity Disconnection] and further Threats & Prosecutions: 29.1 And as on the 26th of March 2009, the proclaimed purchaser, namely RJ Briedenhann, instituted proceedings [marked YKPA16 - as attached to applicants Replying Affidavit], in this Honourable Court, under case number 09/12972, for our [the applicants] eviction from our home - where he confirmed under oath that he personally purchased our home [the alleged property] on the 8th November 2007 and

15

included a Conditions of Sale [marked YKPA5 - as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012] to prove the said purchase and transaction. 30. In the process of time precisely on the 8th November 2010, the 1st respondent also furnished, upon request by the applicants [see YKPA8/(a & b) - as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012], its copy of the Conditions of Sale [marked YKPA6 as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012], as to prove the proclaimed sale of our home [the alleged property] to the proclaimed purchaser. Inconsistencies and Abnormalities on Conditions of Sales of Records. 31. However, the copy of the Conditions of Sale [marked YKPA6 - as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012], as provided by the 1st respondent, conflicts with that [marked YKPA5] provided by the proclaimed purchaser under case number 09/12972: they mismatch [in handwriting and/or signatures] whereas supposedly to be identical, as original and copy, based upon Section 3(2)(c) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 - which reads: the seller shall forthwith after the auction
furnish the purchaser with a copy of the contract, failing which the purchaser may cancel the sale

32. Further to the above, the mismatch [in handwriting and/or signatures], on both Conditions of Sales [YKPA5 and YKPA6 - as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012] on records: 32.1 shows defect in the sale 32.2 calls into question both (i) (ii) the authenticity of both Conditions of Sales YKPA5 and YKPA6 on records; and, the faith of the proclaimed purchaser, the sheriff, and the 1st respondents attorney

32.3 subjects the said sale to be liable to be impeached as against the proclaimed purchaser and the sheriff who conducted the said sale based upon Section 70 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944.

16

Previous Applications 33. In our struggle to save our home [the alleged property] and only asset, we [the applicants] made several applications, over the years, under this case number and the Vereeniging Magistrates Court Case n0. 4563/07 instituted by the 1st respondent: 33.1 However, all the previous [three (3)] High Court applications were withdrawn on the 11th of October 2011 as to avoid situations of Lis Pendens as against an application for rescission which we [the applicants] made in the Vereeniging Magistrates Court under Case Number 07/4563 - instituted by the 1st respondent
in May 2007.

34. The last application in the Vereeniging Magistrates Court, dated the 30th July 2012, was heard on the 3rd October 2012 and due to jurisdiction issue in terms of the relief as sought by us [the applicants], we [the applicants] consented with the representative of the 1st respondent that the matter be postponed sine die to afford us [the applicants] the opportunity to institute new proceeding in a competent court [i.e. the High Court] a copy of the said application and the said order are respectively attached as YKPA12 [as attached to Applicants Notice of Motion dated the 4th October 2012] and YKPA14 [as attached to Applicants Replying Affidavit dated the 6th of December 2012]. 34.1 I shall further mention that on that day, the presiding Magistrate even wished me good luck in my High Court application. 35. Hence, on the 29th of November 2012, we [the applicants] filed the application dated 04th of October 2012 with this Honourable Court, under this very case number. 35.1 The said application was opposed by the 1st respondent only. And, after the closing of pleadings, we [the applicants] set the application down for the 12th of February 2013 35.2 The said application was allocated to Judge MIAH, on the 12/02/2013, who in turn postponed the matter to the 14/02/2013 for hearing. 35.3 On the day of hearing of the said application, on the 14/02/2013 @ 12:30 PM, only the 1st respondents documents were in the courts file; and, none of the applicants documents were to be found in the Courts file.

17

36. Upon hearing both parties and as a result of the applicants documents [especially the applicants founding affidavit] missing in the courts file, Judge MIAH postponed the Matter sine die advising us [the applicants] to join the proclaimed purchaser to the aforementioned application dated the 04th of October 2012. Current Application 37. HENCE, is this current application made for the Joinder of the proclaimed purchaser, namely RJ Briedenhann, as a party to this matter and to the applicants application dated the 4th of October 2012.

X. RELIEF SOUGHT 38. WHEREFORE, I pray, in the light of the facts herein provided, for an order in the following terms i. Joining the proclaimed purchaser, namely RJ Briedenhann, with ID n0. 4611185022084, as the 4th respondent to this matter and to the applicants application dated the 04th of October 2012. The 1st respondent to pay the costs of this application. Further Relief: Granting leave to the applicants to serve the Applicants Notice of Motion & Founding Affidavit, dated the 04th of October 2012, upon the proclaimed purchaser RJ Briedenhann or his attorneys.

ii. iii.

DATED AT DE DEUR ON THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

1st Applicant: P KOUAKOU PLOT 17 ERF 323 KOEDOE STREET DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED VEREENIGING 1884 Cell n0. 083 729 2441

18

Email: kykphilippe@yahoo.co.nz

THE DEPONENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT AND CONSIDERS IT BINDING ON HIS/HER CONSCIENCE AND THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTIONS IN TAKING THIS PRESCRIBED OATH. THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT GAZETTE NOTICE N0. R1648 OF 21 JULY 1972, AS AMENDED, HAVING BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THUS DONE AND SIGNED BEFORE ME AT ON THIS THE . DAY OF . 2013

________________________________ COMMISSIONER OF OATH

19

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG

CASE N0: In the matter between: YAO KOUASSI PHILIPPE KOUAKOU MABEL MATSHIDISO KOUAKOU AND ABSA BANK LIMITED REGISTRAR OF DEEDS PRETORIA MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 1st RESPONDENT 2nd RESPONDENT 3rd RESPONDENT 1ST APPLICANT 2ND APPLICANT

07/30487

2nd APPLICANTS CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVIT

I, the undersigned, MABEL MATSHIDISO KOUAKOU
ID N0. 750101 3850 086

do hereby make an oath and state as follows: 1. I am an adult female married to the 1st applicant. I reside at the alleged property: the property based at PORTION 17 ERF 323 OF THE DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED 1884 in EXTENT 8261 m2 situated in the province of GAUTENG. I am the 2nd applicant in this application and I am duly authorized to depose to this affidavit. 2. I confirm that I have read the affidavit of the 1st applicant and confirm that the facts therein contained are, unless otherwise, indicated or apparent by the content

20

hereof, within my personal knowledge and to the best of my belief, both true and correct in so far as they relate to me. DATED AT DE DEUR ON THIS THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

1st Applicant: MM KOUAKOU PLOT 17 ERF 323 KOEDOE STREET DE DEUR ESTATE LIMITED VEREENIGING 1884 Cell n0. 083 729 2441 Email: kykphilippe@yahoo.co.nz

THE DEPONENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT AND CONSIDERS IT BINDING ON HIS/HER CONSCIENCE AND THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTIONS IN TAKING THIS PRESCRIBED OATH. THE REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN GOVERNMENT GAZETTE NOTICE N0. R1648 OF 21 JULY 1972, AS AMENDED, HAVING BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THUS DONE AND SIGNED BEFORE ME AT ON THIS THE . DAY OF . 2013 ________________________________ COMMISSIONER OF OATH