Nedbank Limited v Lekala N.O and Another (27243/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 668 (2 July 2025)

Nedbank Limited v Lekala N.O and Another (27243/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 668 (2 July 2025)

The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient admissible and updated evidence, particularly a sworn and current valuation of the property as required by Rule 46A(5)(a). Without such evidence, the court could not determine a reserve price for the sale of the property. The court also noted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 668
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Cornelia Ntshabile Lekala N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court Polokwane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2025
Case Number
27243/2022
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed; Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Application for summary judgment postponed sine die; applicant granted leave to supplement papers; costs reserved.
Judges
LG Kilmartin
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Section 129 Notice, Execution Against Immovable Property, Administration of Deceased Estates, Reserve Price Determination
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Land and Property Summary Judgment Mortgage Bond Enforcement Section 129 Notice Execution Against Immovable Property Administration of Deceased Estates +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Cornelia Ntshabile Lekala N.O.

Respondent

The Master of the High Court Polokwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed; Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a clear case for summary judgment against the estate of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Rule 46A regarding execution against residential immovable property have been met, including the provision of a sworn and current valuation.
  3. 3 Whether the section 129 notice under the National Credit Act was properly delivered to the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient admissible and updated evidence, particularly a sworn and current valuation of the property as required by Rule 46A(5)(a). Without such evidence, the court could not determine a reserve price for the sale of the property. The court also noted deficiencies in the applicant's papers regarding compliance with the Administration of Estates Act, specifically the publication of notice to creditors and the expiry of the statutory period. As a result, the court was not satisfied that a clear case for summary judgment had been made out and declined to grant summary judgment at this stage. The application was postponed sine die, with...

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment postponed sine die; applicant granted leave to supplement papers; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The summary judgment application is postponed sine die.
  • The applicant is granted leave to supplement its papers and to provide admissible and updated evidence to enable the Court to determine the reserve price if it is inclined to grant summary judgment.