MaMkhize property blow: Court gives SARS green light to sell R35m estates

A Durban High Court judge has authorised SARS to sell five MaMkhize-linked Sandown properties worth R35m amid mounting costs.

The Durban High Court has authorised the sale of five properties linked to controversial businesswoman Shauwn “MaMkhize” Mkhize, with the estates costing the South African Revenue Service (SARS) nearly R200,000 a month in private security.

Judge Jacqueline Henriques ruled, according to the Mercury, that the properties in Sandown, Johannesburg, could be sold before a separate legal action determines whether SARS is entitled to execute against them. The proceeds must be held in a trust account until the dispute over entitlement is resolved.

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

The judge dismissed objections by Mkhize and her son, Andile Mpisane, who argued, among other things, that the application was not urgent and that the sale would deprive them of their primary residence.

Henriques found that the properties were deteriorating and that the costs of maintaining them were undermining the purpose of the preservation order granted in November 2024.

Court papers show that SARS was paying R188,261.90 a month for private security at the properties, as well as R97,922.30 every six months for insurance.

The properties had not been insured when they were initially preserved, while outstanding municipal charges had reached R1.79 million.

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

Henriques found that several of the financial and commercial concerns had arisen after the preservation order was granted, including the valuation findings, mounting municipal arrears and the need for round-the-clock security and insurance.

These developments, she said, provided sufficient grounds for urgency.

“I have considered the grounds for urgency relied on by SARS. I am of the view that these factors and reasons, as contained in the founding affidavit, constitute sufficient grounds of urgency – as there are commercial interests justifying urgency,” she said.

The judge noted that none of the respondents had challenged the factual allegations in SARS's founding papers, relying instead on preliminary legal objections.

The five properties are situated side by side in Sandown and function as a single compound. Their combined market value is R35 million, while their forced-sale value is R24.5 million.

Four are registered in the name of Yaron Peretz, while the fifth belongs to 22 Aston Investment (Pty) Ltd.

Henriques authorised the curator appointed to oversee the properties to proceed with the sale. SARS has one month to institute a separate action to determine entitlement to the proceeds, which must remain in a trust account in the meantime.

The judge also rejected the argument that selling the properties before the ownership dispute was resolved would pre-empt the outcome of the 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.

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

Mkhize owes SARS R13.3 million in personal income tax and 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.

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

Mkhize also had alternative accommodation available, the judge found, noting that she had at least seven other properties 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.

The judge rejected the respondents' arguments that the sale would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of property, finding that the financial and commercial circumstances justified intervention.

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