Changing Tides 17 Pty Ltd NO v Ntsanwisi (14462/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 619 (31 July 2023)

Changing Tides 17 Pty Ltd NO v Ntsanwisi (14462/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 619 (31 July 2023)

The court found that the reserve price set by the previous order was not attained at auction, and the sale in execution could not be concluded. The respondent's arguments regarding the bond protection plan were found to be irrelevant, as it was a life cover and not an income protector. The court considered the factors in Rule 46A(9)(a), including the fact that the property is the respondent's primary residence and the economic conditions at the time of the auction. The court held that the reserve price proposed by the applicant is fair and just. Accordingly, the sale in execution is cancelled, and the reserve price is set at R1,147,500. No costs order is made, as the defendant was...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 619
Parties
Applicant: Changing Tides 17 Pty Ltd NO; Respondent: Tiyane Boldwing Ntsanwisi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2023
Case Number
14462/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Reserve Price Under Rule 46 A(9)(c)
Outcome
Application granted in part; sale in execution cancelled; new reserve price set; no order as to costs.
Judges
DT Skosana
Legal Topics
Rule 46a Reconsideration, Sale in Execution, Reserve Price, Primary Residence Protection
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rule 46a Reconsideration Sale in Execution Reserve Price Primary Residence Protection

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Changing Tides 17 Pty Ltd NO

Applicant

Tiyane Boldwing Ntsanwisi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Reconsideration of Reserve Price Under Rule 46 A(9)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reserve price set by the previous court order should be reconsidered under Rule 46A(9)(c).
  2. 2 Whether the sale in execution should be confirmed or cancelled.
  3. 3 What is a fair and just reserve price for the property in the current circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reserve price set by the previous order was not attained at auction, and the sale in execution could not be concluded. The respondent's arguments regarding the bond protection plan were found to be irrelevant, as it was a life cover and not an income protector. The court considered the factors in Rule 46A(9)(a), including the fact that the property is the respondent's primary residence and the economic conditions at the time of the auction. The court held that the reserve price proposed by the applicant is fair and just. Accordingly, the sale in execution is cancelled, and the reserve price is set at R1,147,500. No costs order is made, as the defendant was...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; sale in execution cancelled; new reserve price set; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The sale in execution of 5 November 2020 is cancelled.
  • The reserve price for the property is set at R1,147,500.