Koutroulis and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Another (2025-121587) [2025] ZAGPPHC 765 (31 July 2025)
The court found that the attachment of Mr. Koutroulis's Nedbank account was incomplete and invalid because notice of attachment was not given to all interested parties as required by Rule 45(8)(c)(i)(a). Rule 45(12) does not dispense with the notice requirement, and the two rules operate in tandem. The Sheriff’s own return confirmed that satisfaction of the writ had not been demanded from the judgment debtor. The court relied on Riordan v First National Bank Limited and others, which held that irregular attachments without proper notice must be set aside. Furthermore, the summons was not effectively served at the applicant’s chosen domicilium citandi et executandi, and no personal service...
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 765
- Parties
- Applicant: Panagiotis Koutroulis; Applicant: Marcia Koutroulis; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: The Sheriff of the High Court, Pretoria North East; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 31 July 2025
- Case Number
- 2025-121587
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief and Interim Interdict Pending Rescission
- Outcome
- Application granted. Attachment of bank account set aside. Repayment of attached funds ordered. Operation and execution of default judgment suspended pending rescission application. Costs reserved for rescission application.
- Judges
- E van der Schyff
- Legal Topics
- Attachment of Bank Accounts, Writ of Execution, Urgent Interdict, Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Panagiotis Koutroulis
Applicant
Marcia Koutroulis
Applicant
ABSA Bank Limited
Respondent
The Sheriff of the High Court, Pretoria North East
Respondent
Nedbank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief and Interim Interdict Pending Rescission
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application should be heard as an urgent application.
- 2 Whether the attachment of Mr. Koutroulis's bank account was lawful and valid, or should be set aside.
- 3 Whether writs of execution issued under case number 143077/2024 are invalid and should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the attachment of Mr. Koutroulis's Nedbank account was incomplete and invalid because notice of attachment was not given to all interested parties as required by Rule 45(8)(c)(i)(a). Rule 45(12) does not dispense with the notice requirement, and the two rules operate in tandem. The Sheriff’s own return confirmed that satisfaction of the writ had not been demanded from the judgment debtor. The court relied on Riordan v First National Bank Limited and others, which held that irregular attachments without proper notice must be set aside. Furthermore, the summons was not effectively served at the applicant’s chosen domicilium citandi et executandi, and no personal service...
Court Disposition
Application granted. Attachment of bank account set aside. Repayment of attached funds ordered. Operation and execution of default judgment suspended pending rescission application. Costs reserved for rescission application.
Orders
- Condonation is granted for non-compliance with time periods and service requirements prescribed in the Uniform Rules of Court; the application is dealt with as an urgent application.
- The attachment of the First Applicant's bank account under case number 1433077/2024 held with the Third Respondent is declared incomplete and invalid and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment