Dlomo v Absa Bank Limited and Others (5197/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 929 (25 November 2022)

Dlomo v Absa Bank Limited and Others (5197/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 929 (25 November 2022)

The court held that the applicant failed to invoke rule 45A to suspend the execution of the court order authorising the sale in execution. As a result, the sale proceeded lawfully, and with the property having been sold, there was no longer a dispute requiring adjudication. The application for an interdict was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 929
Parties
Applicant: Nomusavirginia Dlomo; Respondent: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: Kobus de Klerk; Respondent: Elaine de Klerk; Respondent: MK Naidoo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Case Number
5197/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Action
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
E.M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Interdict, Sale in Execution, Rule 45a, Suspension of Court Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interdict Sale in Execution Rule 45a Suspension of Court Order

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomusavirginia Dlomo

Applicant

Absa Bank Limited

Respondent

Kobus de Klerk

Respondent

Elaine de Klerk

Respondent

MK Naidoo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale in execution should have been suspended pending the urgent application for an interdict.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was required to invoke rule 45A to suspend the execution of the court order.
  3. 3 Whether there remained a dispute for adjudication after the property was sold.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to invoke rule 45A to suspend the execution of the court order authorising the sale in execution. As a result, the sale proceeded lawfully, and with the property having been sold, there was no longer a dispute requiring adjudication. The application for an interdict was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.