Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Cline v Cline and Others (2022-039758) [2023] ZAGPJHC 966 (25 August 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant's claim for R7 million was based on a valid and uncontested settlement agreement regarding misappropriated estate funds. The respondents failed to deliver a plea and were barred from defending. No substantive attack on the agreement or genuine defence was raised. The respondents' application to strike out the default judgment was dismissed as no material prejudice was shown. The order declaring the specified immovable properties executable was justified to secure the applicant's claim. Interest and costs were awarded as per the agreement and the scale requested. The terms of the order addressed the respondents' concerns regarding execution against their primary residence.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted in favour of the applicant for R7 million, interest, costs, and declaration of specified property executable.

Orders

  • The First Respondent shall pay to the Applicant an amount of R7,000,000 (Seven Million Rand).
  • The First Respondent shall pay interest to the Applicant on R7,000,000 at the prime rate of interest charged by Investec, currently at 9.5% per annum, from 17 August 2022 to date of final payment.
  • The First Respondent shall pay the costs of suit and all other costs incurred by the Applicant on the scale as between attorney and own client.
  • The following immovable property is declared specially executable: Erf 1[...] Stand 3[...] situated at 3[...] R[...] Road, Plettenberg Bay, Western Cape held under title deed R[...] (the 'Plett Property').
  • No reserve price is set in respect of the Plett Property.
  • The application in respect of declaring the Dunkeld Property executable is postponed sine die.

02

Material facts

Parties

Gregory Bobby Cline

Applicant Counsel: K Sila

Michael Solomon Cline

Respondent Counsel: J Hoffman

Bradley Ira Cline

Respondent Counsel: J Hoffman

Peta Ira Cline

Respondent Counsel: J Hoffman

Amounts and remedies

  • Judgment Debt: ZAR 7,000,000
  • Interest Rate Per Annum: ZAR 9.5
  • Partial Payment Received: ZAR 450,000
  • Value of Dunkeld Property: ZAR 25,333,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Default Judgment Application / Judgment After Respondents Barred From Pleading

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the debt of R7 million arises from a settlement agreement regarding misappropriated estate funds. The agreement required registration of mortgage bonds over specified properties as security, which was not done. The applicant received partial payment but the balance remains outstanding. The respondents failed to deliver a plea and were barred from defending. The applicant sought payment, interest, costs, and orders declaring the properties executable.
Respondent
The respondents opposed the action but failed to deliver a plea. On the eve of the hearing, they applied to strike out the default judgment application, arguing insufficient time to respond under Rule 6(5)(b)(ii). They made a 'with prejudice' offer to settle with costs on a party and party scale, expressing concern that their primary residence would be sold in execution. No substantive defence to the settlement agreement was raised.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 26

    A party who fails to deliver a plea after notice of bar is ipso facto barred from defending and default judgment may be granted.

  2. 02

    Gollach & Gomperts (1967) (Pty) Ltd v Universal Mills & Produce Co (Pty) Ltd 1978 (1) SA 914 (A)

    A settlement agreement is binding unless attacked or a genuine defence is raised.

  3. 03

    Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 46

    Immovable property may be declared specially executable to satisfy a judgment debt.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim for R7 million was based on a valid and uncontested settlement agreement regarding misappropriated estate funds. The respondents failed to deliver a plea and were barred from defending. No substantive attack on the agreement or genuine defence was raised. The respondents' application to strike out the default judgment was dismissed as no material prejudice was shown. The order declaring the specified immovable properties executable was justified to secure the applicant's claim. Interest and costs were awarded as per the agreement and the scale requested. The terms of the order addressed the respondents' concerns regarding execution against their primary residence.

Obiter and limits

  • The respondents' fear of losing their primary residence was specifically addressed in the terms of the order.
  • The set down date did not occasion any material prejudice to the respondents.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted in favour of the applicant for R7 million, interest, costs, and declaration of specified property executable.

  • The First Respondent shall pay to the Applicant an amount of R7,000,000 (Seven Million Rand).
  • The First Respondent shall pay interest to the Applicant on R7,000,000 at the prime rate of interest charged by Investec, currently at 9.5% per annum, from 17 August 2022 to date of final payment.
  • The First Respondent shall pay the costs of suit and all other costs incurred by the Applicant on the scale as between attorney and own client.
  • The following immovable property is declared specially executable: Erf 1[...] Stand 3[...] situated at 3[...] R[...] Road, Plettenberg Bay, Western Cape held under title deed R[...] (the 'Plett Property').
  • No reserve price is set in respect of the Plett Property.
  • The application in respect of declaring the Dunkeld Property executable is postponed sine die.

Source and reliance status

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

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

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2023] ZAGPJHC 966

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Case Number: 2022-039758

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED: NO

DATE: 28 August 2023

SIGNATURE

In the matter between

CLINE,

GREGORY BOBBY Applicant

and

CLINE,

MICHAEL SOLOMON

First Respondent

CLINE,

BRADLEY IRA

Second Respondent

FEIGIN,

PETA IRA Third

Applicant

Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by e-mail. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be 14h00 on 25 August 2023.

JUDGMENT

MUDAU, J:

[1] On 19 July 2023, I made the following order:

“1. The First Respondent shall pay to the Applicant an amount of R 7 000 000 (SEVEN MILLION RAND).

2. The First Respondent shall pay interest to the Applicant on R7 000 000 (SEVEN MILLION RAND) at the prime rate of interest charged by Investec currently at 9.5% per annum from 17 August 2022 to date of final payment.

3. The First Respondent shall pay the costs of suit and all other costs incurred by the Applicant on the scale as between attorney and own client.

4. The following immovable properties are declared specially executable: —

4.1 Erf 1[...] Stand 3[...] situated at 3[...] R[...] Road, Plettenberg Bay, Western Cape held under title deed R[...] (the "Plett

Property”).

5. No reserve price is set in respect of the Plett Property.

6. The application in respect of declaring the immovable property situated at Lot 8[...] D[...] situated at 6[...] K[...] Road,

Dunkeld, Johannesburg held under title deed T[...] (the "Dunkeld Property”) valued specially executable, is postponed sine die”.

[2] The matter served before me as a default judgment application. The facts are uncontroverted. The applicant issued summons against the first respondent seeking payment in the amount of R7million; interest on R7million at the prime rate of interest charged by Investec, from 17 August 2022 to date of final payment; Costs of suit on an attorney and client scale; and an order declaring the following immovable properties executable. These properties are, Lot 8[...] D[...], at 6[...] K[...] Road, Dunkeld, Johannesburg (the "Dunkeld Property") valued at R25 333 000.00; Erf 1[...] Stand 3[...] situated at 3[...] R[...] Road, Plettenberg Bay (the "Plett Property").

[3] The first respondent, Michael Solomon Cline, resides at 6[...] K[...] Road Dunkeld, Johannesburg and is the father of the applicant. The second respondent, Bradley Ira cline, is the brother of the applicant. The third respondent, Peta Ira Cline, is the sister of the applicant.

[4] The second and third respondents were cited insofar as they may have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the action. All three respondents opposed the action. However, the respondents failed to deliver a plea timeously. Consequently, on 18 January 2023, a notice of bar was served on the respondents. The Respondents failed to react to the notice of bar and were, accordingly, ipso facto barred from filing a plea.

Background facts

[5] The applicant averred that the debt of R7million arises out of a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in respect of monies allegedly misappropriated by the first respondent from the applicant's mother’s deceased estate. This is not in dispute. The settlement agreement contemplated

that mortgage bonds would be registered over the Dunkeld and Plett Properties as security for discharge of the debt, which was not done. The applicant received payment of R450 000.00 from the first respondent, as contemplated in the settlement agreement, but the remaining R7million.

[6] Clause 4 of the settlement agreement stipulates that: “The Parties agree that the Covering Bonds over Plett and Dunkeld in the sums of R2,000,000.00 (two million Rand) and R5,000,000.00 (five million Rand) respectively, shall be registered as to Plett within 120 (one hundred and twenty) days from the date of signature of this agreement in regard to Dunkeld unless Plett is sold and the bonds on Dunkeld defrayed and then the covering shall forthwith be registered over Dunkeld as well.. The total Covering Bonds to be registered shall be for an amount of R7,000,000.00 (seven million Rand). Should either the Covering Bond for Plett not be in place forthwith (and in any event within 120 (one hundred and twenty) days) or the Covering Bond for Dunkeld not be in place within 12 (twelve) months of the signing of the agreement, MSC (the first respondent) will be in breach thereof. Breach will occur if either of the Covering Bonds are not registered timeously”.

[7] On the eve of hearing this application, the respondent launched an application in terms of rule 30A(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court ("the Rules" ) seeking an order to strike out the applicant’s notice of motion re: Default judgement application issued on 25 May 2023 and served on 26 May 2023, on the basis that they were given 5 days to respond indicating their intention to oppose instead of 10 days, in accordance with Rule 6(5)(b)(ii) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

[8] According to counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents, a 'with prejudice offer” was made on 18 July 2023, to the applicant to tender performance, with costs on a party and party scale, in accordance with the contract and thus settle the matter. The respondents expressed fear that the primary residence of the first and third respondents will be sold in execution.

[9] There was no attack on the settlement agreement or any genuine defence being raised. The terms of the order specifically address the fear expressed by the respondents. I could find no material prejudice to the respondents occasioned by the application. The set down date did not prejudice the respondents. It is for the above reasons that the order was made.

TP MUDAU

JUDGE OF THE HIGH

COURT

JOHANNESBURG

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant: Adv. Adv. K Sila Instructed by: Rothbart Incorporated For the Respondent: Adv. J Hoffman Instructed by: Stan Fanaroff & Associates Date of Hearing: 18 July 2023 Date of Judgment: 25 August 2023

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.

Gollach & Gomperts (1967) (Pty) Ltd v Universal Mills & Produce Co (Pty) Ltd 1978 (1) SA 914 (A)

Case cited

Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 26

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 46

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.