Court authorises sale of Sandown properties linked to Shauwn Mkhize

Share current article via EmailShare current article via FacebookShare current article via TwitterShare current article via LinkedInErnest MabuzaJournalist

Opens in new windowOpens in new windowEnter fullscreen mode displaying this image.ExpandBusinesswoman Shauwn Mkhize is sitting with millions of rand in tax arrears. Picture: Supplied Story audio is generated using AI

The high court in Durban has authorised a curator bonis to sell five luxury residential properties in Sandown, Johannesburg, tied to high-profile businesswoman Shauwn Mkhize and her family.

The court on Monday also ordered that the full proceeds of the sale of the five properties be held by the curator bonis in an interest-bearing trust account.

The court also gave the SA Revenue Service (Sars) a month from the date of the order to institute an action declaring the properties or their cash proceeds executable toward satisfying the outstanding tax debts of Mkhize and the Zikhulise Group.

Presiding over the urgent application by Sars, judge Jacqueline Henriques ruled that the properties must be realised to staunch a rapid erosion of their value caused by runaway maintenance costs, mounting municipal arrears and heavy security expenses.

The ruling stems from a preservation order originally granted on November 21 2024 under the Tax Administration Act (TAA). Sars launched the enforcement action after uncovering substantial unpaid tax liabilities by Mkhize and the Zikhulise Group.

Sars indicated that as at September 19 2025, Mkhize had a personal income tax debt of R13.3m and she had personal liability for the tax indebtedness of the Zikhulise Group, including interest, in the sum of R112.5m.

In its latest application, Sars sought to convert the five immovable properties to cash to be held by the curator bonis pending an action to be instituted to allow it to execute against the cash so generated for either Mkhize’s or the Zikhulise Group’s indebtedness to Sars.

Henriques said the basis on which Sars sought to do so related to the financial burden of preserving the five properties and their deterioration.

She said Sars indicated that these costs were substantial every month and were eroding the value of the immovable properties.

“Such expenses include and are not limited to bi-annual insurance premiums, unpaid monthly municipal charges, the lack of maintenance to the five immovable properties, the monthly cost of security guards and the curator bonis’s fees, which the respondents are liable for but which costs are paid by Sars in the interim,” Henriques noted in her judgment.

The judge said although the five immovable properties were separate properties with two separate registered owners, they effectively formed a single unit.

“Sars obtained a sworn valuation report in respect of the properties and they have a total municipal value of R22,831,000.

“After the valuation, the collective market value of the five properties was estimated as being R35m and the collective forced sale value as being R24.5m.”

Sars also said further expenses were being incurred in respect of the monthly charges owing to the municipality in respect of various amounts levied on the five properties.

However, the Johannesburg municipality has only issued statements in respect of four of the five properties and the total amount outstanding in respect of the four properties at October 3 2025 was R1.8m.

The curator bonis was also instructed to place security guards at the properties, given Sars’ concern that the properties may be vandalised and/or movable assets removed.

A security company was contracted by the curator bonis to provide such security services and the monthly expenses at the five properties are R188,000 which was being paid for by Sars.

The judge said the factual allegations contained in the Sars’ founding affidavit remained unrefuted by the opposing parties.

She said those opposing the application had not disputed any of the facts detailed in the founding affidavit by Sars.

The judge said they, instead, raised various preliminary legal points and failed to deal with the factual basis of the Sars case.

“They have not seriously and unambiguously addressed the facts alleged by the Sars and, as a consequence, I agree with the submission of the Sars that the factual foundation for its case is left entirely unchallenged.”

Henriques said the grounds of opposition advanced by the respondents were without merit and fell to be dismissed.

“(Sars) is entitled to the orders sought for the sale of the properties for the reasons mentioned in the judgment.”

Would you like to comment on this article?Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.