SARS may sell MaMkhize-linked properties worth up to R35m, court rules

Shauwn Mkhize 3.JPG A Durban High Court judge has authorised the sale of five Sandown properties linked to Shauwn “MaMkhize” Mkhize, citing mounting security, insurance and municipal costs. SARS must still bring a separate action to establish its entitlement to execute against the sale proceeds.

“Paying tax is not a punishment, it is a responsibility,” a Durban High Court judge declared as she authorised the South African Revenue Service (SARS) to sell five Sandown properties linked to controversial businesswoman Shauwn “MaMkhize” Mkhize, finding that the deteriorating estates were costing the tax authority nearly R200,000 a month in security alone.

Judge Jacqueline Henriques ruled that the properties could be sold before a separate legal action determines whether SARS is entitled to execute against them. She found that their declining condition and mounting expenses were undermining the purpose of the preservation order.

The judge dismissed objections from Mkhize and her son, Andile Mpisane, including arguments that the application was not urgent and that the sale would deprive them of their primary residence.

She found that Mkhize had several other properties available to her, while Mpisane’s own court papers listed his address as a property in La Lucia, rather than Sandown.

The court authorised the curator appointed to oversee the properties to proceed with the sale, ordering that the proceeds be held in a trust account until a separate action determines who is entitled to the money. SARS has one month to institute that action.

Four of the five properties are registered in the name of Yaron Peretz, while the fifth belongs to 22 Aston Investment (Pty) Ltd. Situated side by side in Sandown, Johannesburg, the properties function as a single compound, with a combined market value of R35 million and a forced-sale value of R24.5 million.

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 her cars, designer bags and other movable assets seized from the properties.

Henriques found that the properties were deteriorating. A valuer reported damp damage and poor maintenance, while the City of Johannesburg issued a contravention notice after discovering that improvements had been built on four of the properties without approved building plans.

Court papers show that SARS was paying R188,261.90 a month for private security, as well as R97,922.30 every six months for insurance. The properties had not been insured when they were initially preserved. Outstanding municipal charges had reached R1.79 million.

Mkhize’s lawyers argued that the application was premature, lacked urgency and would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of property. Henriques rejected those submissions, finding that the financial and commercial circumstances justified urgent intervention.

“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.

She also found that several costs and concerns arose after the preservation order was granted in November 2024, including the valuation report, mounting municipal arrears and the need for round-the-clock security and insurance. These developments undermined the argument that SARS had delayed unreasonably.

Mpisane maintained that the properties constituted his primary residence, but Henriques was not persuaded. She pointed out that his affidavits listed his address as a La Lucia property and that he and his family had alternative accommodation there.

Mkhize would likewise not be left without a home, 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 also rejected the argument that selling the properties before the ownership dispute was resolved would pre-empt the outcome of a future trial.

On a balance of probabilities, she found that SARS had laid sufficient groundwork to show that Mkhize was the beneficial owner of the properties. This included evidence that Mkhize and Zikhulise Group had paid the bulk of the purchase price, while Peretz testified during the tax inquiry that all negotiations had been conducted through her.

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.