Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Absa Bank Limited v White N.O and Another (M19/15) [2015] ZANWHC 57 (17 September 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the applicant is entitled to payment of the claimed sum and interest from the estate of the late Matthew Gilliand White, and that the mortgaged property may be declared specially executable and sold in execution under section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 due to the delay in finalizing the estate. The applicant is not obliged to lodge a claim with the executrix and executor and may resort to litigation, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Nedbank Ltd v Steyn. Costs are awarded on an attorney and client scale as stipulated in the mortgage bond.

Court disposition

Application granted. The draft order marked 'AAL' is made an order of court.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted payment of R490,526.30 and interest from the estate of the late Matthew Gilliand White.
  • The immovable property serving as security for the loan is declared specially executable.
  • A warrant of attachment is to be issued and the Sheriff is directed to sell the immovable property in execution under section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965.
  • Costs are awarded on an attorney and client scale.

02

Material facts

Parties

Absa Bank Limited

Applicant Counsel: Adv Scholtz

Mathilda Cathleen White N.O.

Respondent

Matthew Charles Gilliand White N.O.

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Principal Debt Claimed: ZAR 490,526.3

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Application / First Instance

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that it is entitled to payment of R490,526.30 and interest from the estate, and to have the mortgaged property declared specially executable and sold in execution due to delay in finalizing the estate. The applicant submitted that it is not obliged to lodge a claim with the executrix and executor but may resort to litigation, relying on Nedbank Ltd v Steyn.
Respondent
The application was not opposed. No arguments were submitted by the respondents.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Nedbank Ltd v Steyn (20085/2014) [2015] ZASCA 30 (25 March 2015)

    A creditor is entitled to proceed by litigation against an estate and is not obliged to lodge a claim with the executrix and executor.

  2. 02

    Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965

    Sale in execution of immovable property may be authorized under section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 where there is delay in finalizing the estate.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the applicant is entitled to payment of the claimed sum and interest from the estate of the late Matthew Gilliand White, and that the mortgaged property may be declared specially executable and sold in execution under section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 due to the delay in finalizing the estate. The applicant is not obliged to lodge a claim with the executrix and executor and may resort to litigation, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Nedbank Ltd v Steyn. Costs are awarded on an attorney and client scale as stipulated in the mortgage bond.

Obiter and limits

  • The mortgage bond stipulates liability for costs on an attorney and client scale, which the court enforces.
  • The application was unopposed, and the court relied on the applicant's submissions and supporting authority.

Court disposition

Application granted. The draft order marked 'AAL' is made an order of court.

  • The applicant is granted payment of R490,526.30 and interest from the estate of the late Matthew Gilliand White.
  • The immovable property serving as security for the loan is declared specially executable.
  • A warrant of attachment is to be issued and the Sheriff is directed to sell the immovable property in execution under section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965.
  • Costs are awarded on an attorney and client scale.

Source and reliance status

North West High Court, Mafikeng

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 West High Court, Mafikeng

Judgment

[2015] ZANWHC 57

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG)

CASE NO.: M 19/15

In the matter between:

ABSA

BANK LIMITED

APPLICANT

and

MATHILDA CATHLEEN WHITE N.O

1ST RESPONDENT

duty appointed EXECUTRIX in the ESTATE

OF THE LATE MATTHEW GILLIAND WHITE and

MATHILDA

CATHLEEN WHITE

In terms of Section 13 and 14 of the Administration

of Estates Act 66 of 1965 (as amended)

MATTHEW CHARLES GILLIAND WHITE N.O

2ND RESPONDENT

duly appointed EXECUTOR in the ESTATE

In terms of Section 13 and14 of the Administration

of Estate Act 66 of 1965 (as amended)

JUDGMENT

Landman J:

[1] ABSA Bank Ltd, the applicant, applies on notice of motion against Mathilda Cathleen White NO and Matthews Charles Gilliand White NO, the executrix and executor of the estate of the late Matthew Gilliand White, the first and second respondents, for payment of the sum of R490 526,30 and interest as well as an order declaring the immovable property being security for the loan, to be declared especially executable that a warrant of attachment be issued and that the Sheriff be directed in terms of section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 to sell in execution the immovable property. The applicant also seeks costs on an attorney and client scale.

[2] The application was not opposed. I enquired from Mr Scholtz, who appeared on behalf the applicant, whether the applicant was not obliged to lodge a claim for payment with the executrix and executor of the estate. Mr Scholtz submitted that the applicants are entitled to do so, but they were also entitled to resort to litigation. Mr Scholtz kindly supplied me with a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Nedbank Ltd v Steyn (20085/2014) [2015] ZASCA 30 (25 March 2015) which held this to be the case.

[3] This is a case where the sale in execution should be authorized in terms of section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 in view of the delay by the respondents in finalizing the estate.

[4] The mortgage bond stipulated that the deceased (and thereby his estate) is liable for costs on an attorney and client scale.

Order

[5] I make the following order:

1. The draft order marked “AAL” is made an order of court.

AA Landman

Judge of the High Court

APPEARANCES:

Date of hearing:

10 September 2015

Date of Judgment:

17 September 2015

Counsel for the Applicant:

Adv Scholtz

Instructed by:

D C Kruger Attorneys

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.

Nedbank Ltd v Steyn (20085/2014) [2015] ZASCA 30 (25 March 2015)

Case cited

Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.