Mamogale and Others v Nedbank Ltd and Others (3112/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 629 (3 September 2015)

Mamogale and Others v Nedbank Ltd and Others (3112/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 629 (3 September 2015)

The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the underlying cause for the sale in execution had fallen away at the time of the sale, as the outstanding amount remained unpaid on the date of sale. The right of redemption does not persist after the sale in execution but before transfer, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in FIRSTRAND Bank Ltd v Nkata. The applicants lacked locus standi to challenge the sale, and their allegations against the fourth respondent were unsubstantiated. The application was ill-founded and included serious, unfounded allegations, warranting a punitive costs order.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 629
Parties
Applicant: Lancelot Mamogale; Applicant: Sholastica Maletsose Mamogale; Applicant: Siyabulela Ndonda Gcanga; Applicant: Noluthando Lovenia Gcanga; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Moses Mgibe Mabena; Respondent: Mary Maphefo Mabena; Respondent: Hack Stupel and Ross Attorneys; Respondent: The Office of the Sheriff: Wonderboom; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds: Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2015
Case Number
3112/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Sale in Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the first and second applicants.
Judges
C J van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Sale in Execution, Right of Redemption, Locus Standi, Mortgage Bond Enforcement
Civil Procedure Land and Property Sale in Execution Right of Redemption Locus Standi Mortgage Bond Enforcement

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lancelot Mamogale

Applicant

Sholastica Maletsose Mamogale

Applicant

Siyabulela Ndonda Gcanga

Applicant

Noluthando Lovenia Gcanga

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Moses Mgibe Mabena

Respondent

Mary Maphefo Mabena

Respondent

Hack Stupel and Ross Attorneys

Respondent

The Office of the Sheriff: Wonderboom

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds: Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Sale in Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale in execution of the property should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application.
  3. 3 Whether the right of redemption persisted after the sale in execution but before transfer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the underlying cause for the sale in execution had fallen away at the time of the sale, as the outstanding amount remained unpaid on the date of sale. The right of redemption does not persist after the sale in execution but before transfer, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in FIRSTRAND Bank Ltd v Nkata. The applicants lacked locus standi to challenge the sale, and their allegations against the fourth respondent were unsubstantiated. The application was ill-founded and included serious, unfounded allegations, warranting a punitive costs order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the first and second applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first and second applicants are ordered to pay the costs on the scale as between attorney and own client.