Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

ABSA Bank Limited v Fourie and Another (64550/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1048 (4 October 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that, despite previous reductions and proper advertisement, no bids were received for the property, indicating a lack of market interest. The updated valuation report established a market value of R900 000.00, but the forced sale context justified a lower reserve price. The court determined that varying the reserve price to R400 000.00 would strike a fair balance between the interests of the execution creditor and the judgment debtor, facilitating the sale while not unduly prejudicing either party. The respondent was held liable for the costs of the application in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Court disposition

Application granted; reserve price varied to R400 000.00; respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • The order of this court granted on 24 June 2021, as varied on 17 February 2022, is further varied to amend the reserve price to R400 000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Rand).
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of the application on attorney and client scale.

02

Material facts

Parties

ABSA Bank Limited

Applicant Counsel: Adv. J. Minnaar

Godfrey Graynold Fourie

Respondent

Priscilla May Fourie

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Reserve Price (amended): ZAR 400,000
  • Arrears as at 25 March 2024: ZAR 1,303,504.79
  • Outstanding Rates and Taxes: ZAR 87,858.97

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Application / Application to Vary Reserve Price in Execution Proceedings

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that despite previous reductions in the reserve price and proper advertisement of the auction, no bids were received for the property. The applicant provided updated arrears and rates figures and submitted a recent valuation report indicating a market value of R900 000.00. The applicant contended that a further reduction of the reserve price to R350 000.00 was necessary to facilitate a sale and recover the judgment debt.
Respondent
The first respondent, appearing in person, opposed any reduction of the reserve price below R650 000.00. He stated that he had sought pro bono legal assistance but received no reply. He expressed concern that a lower reserve price would be unfair and detrimental to his interests.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Practice developed in South African High Courts

    In determining the reserve price for a sale in execution, the court must balance the interests of the execution creditor and the judgment debtor, considering the market value, forced sale value, and outstanding rates and taxes.

  2. 02

    Initial agreement between the parties

    The costs of the application are to be borne by the respondent as provided for in the initial agreement between the parties.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that, despite previous reductions and proper advertisement, no bids were received for the property, indicating a lack of market interest. The updated valuation report established a market value of R900 000.00, but the forced sale context justified a lower reserve price. The court determined that varying the reserve price to R400 000.00 would strike a fair balance between the interests of the execution creditor and the judgment debtor, facilitating the sale while not unduly prejudicing either party. The respondent was held liable for the costs of the application in accordance with the parties' agreement.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted the importance of updated valuation reports in execution proceedings to ensure fairness to both parties.
  • The judgment was delivered electronically and made available to the parties as a courtesy.

Court disposition

Application granted; reserve price varied to R400 000.00; respondent to pay costs.

  • The order of this court granted on 24 June 2021, as varied on 17 February 2022, is further varied to amend the reserve price to R400 000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Rand).
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of the application on attorney and client scale.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2024] ZAGPPHC 1048

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO.: 64550/2020

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED: NO

Date: 4 October 2024

E van der Schyff

In the matter between:

ABSA

BANK LIMITED

Applicant

And

GODFREY

GRAYNOLD FOURIE

First Respondent

PRISCILLA

MAY FOURIE

Second respondent

JUDGMENT

Van der Schyff J

[1] On 24 June 2021, the applicant obtained default judgment and an order declaring the respondents' property to be specially executable. A reserve price was set at R650 000.00. The property was put up for sale in execution on 3 August 2022, but no bids were received. On 17 February 2022, the reserve price was amended to R500 000. On 17 May 2023, the property was put up for auction again. Again, no bids were received.

[2] The applicant now approaches this court seeking an order varying the reserve price to R350 000.00. The applicant provided evidence to the effect that on 25 March 2024, the arrears were R1 303 504.79. The outstanding rates and taxes amount to R87 858.97.

[3] The Sheriff's report reflects that the auction was advertised and that 42 bidders registered. However, none of the registered bidders participated in bidding on the property.

[4] The first respondent, Mr. Fourie, appeared in person. He indicated that he applied for pro bono legal assistance but received no reply. He stated that he needs legal assistance because he does not want the reserve price to be less than R650 000.

[5] I requested the applicant to provide an updated valuation report. This report was only provided on 23 September 2024. The property's market value was determined to be R900 000.00. In determining the reserve price, the practice developed to have regard to the forced sale value, less any outstanding rates, and taxes. Where, however, it is evident that the property is not sought after, the court has to consider that the immovable property is security for a debt due and owing to the plaintiff who succeeded in obtaining a judgment debt. The court must enedeavour to strike a balance between the interests of the execution creditor and the judgment debtor.

[6] In casu, the reserve price was already reduced once. If the market value of the property is considered, as well as the fact that there were, to date, no interested bidders, I am of the view that it is fair to both parties to vary the reserve price to the amount of

R400 000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Rand) in an effort to facilitate the sale of the property.

[7] The respondent is liable for the costs of the application as provided for in terms of the initial agreement concluded between the parties.

ORDER

In the result, the following order is granted:

1. The order of this court, granted on 24 June 2021, varied by an order granted on 17 February 2022, is further varied so as to amend the prayer setting out the reserve price to read as follows:

'The property is to be sold in execution with a reserve price of R400 000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Rand)'.

2. The respondent is to pay the costs of the application on attorney and client scale.

Judge of the High Court

Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. It will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives as a courtesy gesture.

For the applicant: Adv. J. Minnaar Instructed by: Hammond Pole Attorneys For the respondent: In Person Date of the hearing: 7 August 2024 Updated valuation report uploaded: 23 September 2024 Date of judgment: 4 October 2024

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.