Israeli businessman Yaron Peretz was the registered owner of four Sandown properties.
The Durban High Court has now ruled that he acted as a proxy for Shauwn “MaMkhize” Mkhize, clearing the way for the sale of five properties valued at R35 million.
The ruling exposes the ownership arrangement behind the luxury Sandown compound linked to Mkhize.
It also adds to the ongoing scrutiny of her tax affairs, which NOWinSA previously covered amid her tax turmoil.
Judge Jacqueline Henriques looked beyond the names on the property deeds to establish who funded and controlled the estate.
The court found that Peretz was a “paper” owner, while Mkhize and her company, Zikhulise Group, funded most of the initial purchase price.
How the court uncovered the property ownership arrangement
Peretz, who resides in Israel, did not attend the court proceedings. However, his testimony during an earlier SARS tax inquiry proved decisive.
He told the inquiry that Mkhize handled all negotiations relating to the acquisition and management of the Sandown properties.
He also admitted that he had no direct involvement in the transactions.
The testimony, together with the financial evidence, led the court to find on a balance of probabilities that Mkhize was the beneficial owner of the properties registered in Peretz’s name.
The judge also criticised the respondents’ response to SARS’ evidence, writing that they had not “seriously and unambiguously addressed the facts alleged by the SARS”.
This supported the court’s assessment of the evidence before it.
The court considered evidence that Mkhize supplied the capital and treated the palatial compound as her residence.
It concluded that Peretz’s registered ownership did not reflect the underlying arrangement.
The judgment explains why the curator could proceed with the sale despite objections from Mkhize and her family.
The legal principle behind the registered ownership ruling
The case hinged on the legal principle of beneficial ownership. This allows courts to look beyond registered title and establish who ultimately controls an asset or benefits from it.
In this case, Peretz’s admission that Mkhize handled the negotiations, combined with evidence about who funded the acquisitions, strengthened SARS’ argument that his registered ownership did not reflect the underlying arrangement.
The court also criticised the respondents’ failure to properly challenge SARS’ factual case. Judge Henriques wrote:
“They have not seriously and unambiguously addressed the facts alleged by the CSARS and, as a consequence, I agree with the submission of the CSARS that the factual foundation for its case is left entirely unchallenged.”
The fifth property, at 22 Aston Street, is registered under 22 Aston Investment (Pty) Ltd.
The court found that it formed part of the same compound and beneficial ownership structure.
Mkhize and her son, Andile Mpisane, opposed the sale, arguing that it would deprive them of their primary residence.
However, Judge Henriques rejected the argument that the sale would leave Mkhize without suitable accommodation, stating that Mkhize would not be left without a place to live:
“Should this court declare the properties executable and authorise the sale, she will not be left without accommodation or destitute.”
The judge noted that Mkhize had several other properties she could occupy.
The court nevertheless authorised the curator bonis to sell all five properties, while leaving the final determination of beneficial ownership and the right to execute against the properties or their proceeds to separate proceedings.
The ruling adds to the wider legal fallout from SARS’ action against Mkhize’s assets.
In a separate development, SARS’ auction of seized luxury designer items highlighted the challenges involved in identifying and selling assets linked to the tax dispute.
Why SARS can sell the five Sandown properties
The properties were deteriorating under a preservation order, while the costs of maintaining them continued to mount.
Paying tax is not a punishment, it is a responsibility.
— Judge Jacqueline Henriques, opening of the judgment, quoting Benjamin Franklin.
SARS told the court that security cost R188,261.90 a month and that municipal arrears had reached R1.79 million.
The overall tax debt stood at R125.9 million.
The court found that selling the properties would help preserve their value by converting deteriorating assets into cash.
It also accepted that the sale could proceed before SARS completed separate proceedings to establish its right to execute against the assets.
The five properties have a combined market value of R35 million, with a forced-sale value of R24.5 million.
Under the order, the curator bonis must deposit the full sale proceeds into an interest-bearing trust account.
The money will remain there while SARS pursues a separate legal action to establish whether the properties or their proceeds can be declared executable for the outstanding tax debts.
The court gave SARS one month from the date of the order to institute that action.
The sale can therefore proceed without immediately transferring the proceeds to SARS.
The order allows the curator to preserve the assets’ value while the separate legal dispute over their use to settle the tax debt continues.
Read the full Durban High Court judgment on the sale of the five Sandown properties.
