Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd N.O v Srivastava and Others (D1067/2025) [2025] ZAKZDHC 49 (6 August 2025)

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd N.O v Srivastava and Others (D1067/2025) [2025] ZAKZDHC 49 (6 August 2025)

The court found that the reserve price fixed in the original order had resulted in two failed sales in execution, with no bids received even when the property was offered below the reserve price. The applicant demonstrated that the debt owed by the respondents had increased substantially, and the municipal arrears were significant. The respondent's opposition did not address the core issue of the reserve price and was based on a misunderstanding of the procedural requirements. The court held that Uniform Rule 46A(9)(c) mandates reconsideration of the terms of execution when the reserve price is not achieved, and that such reconsideration is procedural, not adversarial. Given the passage...

Citation
[2025] ZAKZDHC 49
Parties
Applicant: Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd N.O.; Respondent: Mayank Srivastava; Respondent: Rajeshnee Bhagrati; Respondent: eThekwini Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2025
Case Number
D1067/2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Variation of Reserve Price After Failed Sales in Execution
Outcome
The application to set aside the reserve price is granted. The property shall be sold in execution without reserve. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mossop
Legal Topics
Uniform Rule 46a, Sale in Execution, Reserve Price Variation, Judicial Discretion, Special Executability
Civil Procedure Land and Property Uniform Rule 46a Sale in Execution Reserve Price Variation Judicial Discretion Special Executability

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd N.O.

Applicant

Mayank Srivastava

Respondent

Rajeshnee Bhagrati

Respondent

eThekwini Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Variation of Reserve Price After Failed Sales in Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reserve price fixed for the sale in execution should be reconsidered and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the property should be sold without a reserve price after two failed sales in execution.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's repeated application constitutes an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reserve price fixed in the original order had resulted in two failed sales in execution, with no bids received even when the property was offered below the reserve price. The applicant demonstrated that the debt owed by the respondents had increased substantially, and the municipal arrears were significant. The respondent's opposition did not address the core issue of the reserve price and was based on a misunderstanding of the procedural requirements. The court held that Uniform Rule 46A(9)(c) mandates reconsideration of the terms of execution when the reserve price is not achieved, and that such reconsideration is procedural, not adversarial. Given the passage...

Court Disposition

The application to set aside the reserve price is granted. The property shall be sold in execution without reserve. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The order of this court dated 8 October 2021, fixing a reserve price of R660,000 for the sale of the property, is reconsidered and set aside.
  • The proposed third sale in execution of the property shall occur without reserve.