ABSA Bank LTD v Minnaar (65149/16; 52267/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 443 (7 June 2022)

ABSA Bank LTD v Minnaar (65149/16; 52267/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 443 (7 June 2022)

The court held that the only issue before it was the application for a reserve price under Rule 46A(8)(e). The respondent's grounds of opposition, including the alleged absence of a signed loan agreement and claims of reckless lending, were not relevant to the determination of the reserve price. Both parties' applications for condonation of late filing were granted as neither party opposed the other's application and no prejudice was suffered. The applicant's application for a reserve price succeeded, and the court supplemented the previous order to include a reserve price for the sale in execution of the property.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 443
Parties
Applicant: ABSA Bank LTD; Respondent: Hendrina Johanna Minnaar
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2022
Case Number
65149/16; 52267/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Reserve Price Under Rule 46 A(8)(e)
Outcome
Application for reserve price granted; previous order supplemented to include reserve price.
Judges
Mathunzi
Legal Topics
Rule 46a Reserve Price, Default Judgment, Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Condonation of Late Filing
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rule 46a Reserve Price Default Judgment Mortgage Bond Enforcement Condonation of Late Filing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABSA Bank LTD

Applicant

Hendrina Johanna Minnaar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Reserve Price Under Rule 46 A(8)(e)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should set a reserve price for the sale in execution of the respondent's property under Rule 46A(8)(e).
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of affidavits by both parties.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's opposition based on alleged reckless lending and absence of a signed loan agreement is relevant to the reserve price application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the only issue before it was the application for a reserve price under Rule 46A(8)(e). The respondent's grounds of opposition, including the alleged absence of a signed loan agreement and claims of reckless lending, were not relevant to the determination of the reserve price. Both parties' applications for condonation of late filing were granted as neither party opposed the other's application and no prejudice was suffered. The applicant's application for a reserve price succeeded, and the court supplemented the previous order to include a reserve price for the sale in execution of the property.

Court Disposition

Application for reserve price granted; previous order supplemented to include reserve price.

Orders

  • The order dated 10 October 2016 is supplemented to include an order that the immovable property known as ERF[....] Melodie Extension 28 Township, Registration Division JQ, North West Province, measuring 466 square metres, held by Deed of Transfer T2836/2008, may be sold in execution with a reserve price of R935 000.00.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's taxed costs on an attorney-and-client scale.