Tide turns in R2m Tygerdal property dispute after stalled transfer
The house in Tygerdal
Image: Supplied
The tide appears to be turning in a contentious Tygerdal property dispute valued at over R2 million, after the Weekend Argus intervened with formal enquiries, prompting a response from the parties involved and apparent movement in the long-delayed deal.
The case centres on Nicolene Peters, who has been acting on behalf of her daughter, Jady, a Dubai-based buyer who purchased the property at Nassau Street in Tygerdal.
Peters previously told the Weekend Argus that what was expected to be a straightforward transfer had turned into months of uncertainty, despite nearly R900,000 being paid over to the bond and transferring attorneys at the end of January.
According to Peters, the offer to purchase was signed on 25 November 2025, with an anticipated transfer date in January 2026. However, that date came and went, followed by further shifting timelines in February and March, with no firm registration date ever confirmed.
The situation became critical when Peters sold her own property and was required to vacate at the end of January, under the impression that the new home would soon be ready.
“We had nowhere to go. Everything was paid for, everything was ready, but we could not move in,” Peters said.
She and her husband were forced into temporary arrangements, including staying in an unsuitable property and later with family in Bonteheuwel under overcrowded conditions. Peters eventually rented a small room in Monte Vista for R8,800 per month.
“It was extremely difficult, especially in the heat. We were living out of a single room while waiting for answers,” she said.
The house was sold as furnished
Image: Supplied
Peters further alleged that repeated assurances were given by the estate agent that the property would be ready for occupation and that an addendum would be provided to protect her from indefinite occupational rent. She claims this was never formalised.
Peters maintained that the building plans are a key point of dispute and should have been properly resolved before transfer.
She argued that the plans were indicated as compliant in the Offer to Purchase, but later it emerged that they were not in order. According to Peters, this was not something she was willing to inherit as the buyer.
She has insisted that the seller must take responsibility for ensuring the plans are updated and approved, saying she had done the same when selling her own property to avoid passing problems on to the next owner.
Peters said for this reason she also refused to sign the final transfer documents until this issue was properly addressed.
Frustrated by what she described as a lack of communication from the agent, the seller and the attorneys, Peters eventually moved into the Tygerdal property in mid-March without transfer having been finalised.
“I reached a point where no one was answering me. I needed answers and a place to stay,” she said.
However, within hours of the Weekend Argus sending media enquiries to the relevant parties, Peters contacted the newspaper to say there had been a breakthrough.
She indicated that she had received communication that the seller would be signing the outstanding documents and that the parties would proceed with the final steps towards transfer.
Shortly thereafter, transferring attorney Ismaiel Mohamed provided a detailed response outlining the reasons for the delays and the current status of the matter.
“In order to proceed with the transfer the Seller and Buyer are to sign transfer documents. With the Seller being in the UK she needed to sign her documents before a Notary and then send the originals to us.
"We could not move the matter forward without same. Upon her signing same was sent via the post office. These documents have still not been received. The Seller has re-signed a new set of documents which were couriered to us. We are in possession of same.”
He also addressed concerns about communication.
“We have sent numerous emails to the Purchaser, however we have not been able to provide a date for transfer as we were not in possession of the documents from the Seller.
"The Purchasers representative also refused to sign documents until such time as the Seller documents were in hand. Upon receipt of the Seller documents we set up an appointment with the Purchaser representative who attended our office on the 26th March but refused to sign.”
According to Mohamed, the transaction can now proceed once the purchaser signs.
“Once the Purchasers sign the transfer documents we can move the matter towards registration.”
On the issue of disputed building plans, he added:
“This issue has been dealt with between the Parties, and I see no reason why transfer cannot proceed.”
“We have answered the queries, however we have not been able to give a date for transfer as we have always been waiting on a party to sign their transfer documents.
"We first awaited the Seller and we now await the Purchaser. This was also explained to Ms Peters in great detail when she attended our offices with her husband on the 26th March.”
Mohamed confirmed that a new appointment has been arranged.
“We have further set an appointment for her to attend at our offices to sign the documents. We will then be able to move the matter forward.”
Seller Valda Arendse said delays were caused by difficulties securing a UK notary appointment and postal backlogs, which prevented documents from reaching attorneys. She said she later re-signed and couriered new documents.
Arendse disputed claims of being contacted, stating the first email was received on 16 March, a day before the purchaser allegedly occupied the property without her knowledge.
"She said the buyer had initially chosen to take occupation only upon registration. Arendse added that approved building plans were provided and any concerns are being addressed. She maintains she has complied fully with her obligations and taken steps to expedite the process.
Estate agent Samuel Reid said no binding assurances were given outside formal agreements, and the buyer had indicated she would wait for registration while arranging alternative accommodation.
He said any changes to occupation terms required a written addendum, which was not concluded.
Reid added that transfer timelines depended on outstanding documents. He maintained he remained responsive throughout and had advised Ms Peters to include a “subject to purchase” clause to mitigate risk.
Trudie Broekmann from Trudie Broekmann Attorneys explained that buyers are placed at a disadvantage if they are not provided with a property's building plans when it is marketed to them.
“That often results in making a purchase and then discovering that changes have been made to the property without pre-approved plans, leaving the buyer with a mess - the City can require them to break down the improvements that don't have approved plans.
“Applying for the plans to be registered "as if the improvements haven't been built yet" is what most people do, but that is expensive and time-consuming. The City of Cape Town takes about nine months to process such applications. After that, the building inspector will come out to inspect and then issue an occupation certificate.
“Buyers shouldn't allow transfer to go through before they have an occupation certificate reflecting the property they are purchasing.
“A buyer is also recommended to demand proof if a large deposit is being held in the conveyancer's trust account and that the interest on that money belongs to them.
“(In this case) If that proof is provided, and since she already has occupation of the property without having to pay occupational rent, her position should be fairly secure.”