ABSA Bank Limited v Fourie and Another (64550/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1048 (4 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1048
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 64550/2020
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- E van der Schyff
- Case number
- 64550/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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. MinnaarGodfrey Graynold Fourie
RespondentPriscilla May Fourie
RespondentAmounts 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
Posture
Civil Application / Application to Vary Reserve Price in Execution Proceedings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the reserve price for the sale in execution should be further reduced to facilitate the sale of the property.
- 02
Whether the respondent should be liable for the costs of the application.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
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
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.