Mamkhize property blow as court clears sale of R35m Sandown estates

The properties have a combined market value of R35 million and are costing SARS almost R200 000 a month in private security and related upkeep. Judge Jacqueline Henriques ruled that the estates could be sold before the ownership and entitlement dispute is finalised, provided that the proceeds are held in a trust account in the interim.

The judgment dismissed objections from Mkhize and her son, Andile Mpisane. They argued, among other things, that SARS’s application was not urgent and that the sale could deprive them of their primary residence.

Why the court found the sale was urgent

Henriques found that the properties were deteriorating and that the cost of preserving them was undermining the purpose of a preservation order granted in November 2024.

Court papers showed that SARS was paying R188 261.90 a month for private security at the properties. Insurance was costing a further R97 922.30 every six months. The estates had not been insured when they were initially preserved, while outstanding municipal charges had grown to R1.79 million.

A valuer reported damp damage and poor maintenance. The City of Johannesburg also issued a contravention notice after finding that improvements had been built on four of the properties without approved building plans.

The judge said several of these financial and commercial concerns had emerged after the preservation order was issued. The valuation findings, growing municipal arrears and the need for round-the-clock security and insurance were sufficient, she found, to justify treating the matter as urgent.

“Paying tax is not a punishment; it is a responsibility,” Henriques said.

She added that the circumstances described in SARS’s founding affidavit constituted sufficient grounds for urgency because they involved commercial interests.

Five properties form one compound

The five properties are situated next to one another in Sandown and operate as a single compound. Their combined market value is R35 million, while their forced-sale value is R24.5 million.

Four of the properties are registered in the name of Yaron Peretz. The fifth is registered to 22 Aston Investment (Pty) Ltd.

Henriques authorised the curator appointed to oversee the properties to proceed with the sale. SARS now has one month to institute separate proceedings to determine its entitlement to the sale proceeds. Until that dispute is resolved, the money must remain in a trust account.

The judge rejected the argument that selling the properties before the ownership dispute was decided would effectively determine the outcome of future proceedings. On a balance of probabilities, she found that SARS had laid sufficient groundwork to show that Mkhize was the beneficial owner of the properties.

Evidence considered by the court

The evidence included payments made by Mkhize and Zikhulise Group towards most of the purchase price. Peretz also testified during the tax inquiry that all negotiations relating to the properties had been conducted through Mkhize.

The ruling does not finally determine every issue in the separate dispute over SARS’s entitlement. Instead, it allows the properties to be sold while ensuring that the proceeds are preserved until that legal question is decided.

This distinction is important in cases involving preserved assets. A court may permit property to be sold where its value or condition is being affected, while placing the proceeds under control so that the parties’ competing claims can still be considered in later proceedings.

Tax liabilities and recovered assets

Mkhize owes SARS R13.3 million in personal income tax. She is also personally liable for the R112.5 million owed by Zikhulise Group, of which she is a trustee and beneficiary.

SARS has already recovered R6.1 million through auctions of cars, designer bags and other movable assets seized from the properties.

The court’s decision follows those recoveries and gives SARS permission to take the next step in dealing with the five Sandown estates. The proceeds from any sale will not immediately be paid to SARS or any other party, but will remain secured pending the separate action.

Arguments over primary residence rejected

Mpisane argued that the Sandown properties were his primary residence. Henriques noted, however, that his court papers listed his address as a property in La Lucia and that he and his family had alternative accommodation there.

The judge also found that Mkhize had alternative accommodation available. She noted that Mkhize had at least seven other properties that she could occupy.

“I am therefore satisfied that she would not be prejudiced by such sales to the extent that she has alternative accommodation,” Henriques said.

Henriques rejected the argument that the sale would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of property. She found that the financial and commercial circumstances justified the intervention, particularly in light of the deterioration, security requirements, insurance costs and municipal arrears linked to the estates.

Costs order against respondents

Mkhize, Mpisane, 22 Aston Investment and 56 Adrianne Street (Pty) Ltd were ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally. The order includes the costs of two counsel on Scale C.

The immediate effect of the judgment is that the curator may proceed with the sale of the five Sandown properties. The larger dispute over ownership, beneficial interest and SARS’s entitlement to the proceeds will continue separately, with the sale money protected in a trust account until that matter is determined.