Nedbank Limited v Mohlampe (003488/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 258 (7 February 2023)

Nedbank Limited v Mohlampe (003488/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 258 (7 February 2023)

The court held that the application for substituted service was ill-founded. The applicant attempted to circumvent the strict requirements of personal service under Rule 46A and the relevant practice directives. The jurisdictional fact for substituted service is that personal service is not possible at the time of launching the application, not subsequently. The applicant's approach did not satisfy this requirement, and the relief sought was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 258
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Letlhogonolo Lazarus Mohlampe
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2023
Case Number
003488/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Substituted Service in Foreclosure Proceedings
Outcome
Application for substituted service dismissed; balance of relief postponed sine die.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Foreclosure, Rule 46a, Personal Service Requirement
Civil Procedure Land and Property Substituted Service Foreclosure Rule 46a Personal Service Requirement

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Letlhogonolo Lazarus Mohlampe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Substituted Service in Foreclosure Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted service may be granted in foreclosure proceedings under Rule 46A where personal service was not achieved.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's proposed method of substituted service complies with the requirements of Rule 46A and relevant practice directives.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for substituted service was ill-founded. The applicant attempted to circumvent the strict requirements of personal service under Rule 46A and the relevant practice directives. The jurisdictional fact for substituted service is that personal service is not possible at the time of launching the application, not subsequently. The applicant's approach did not satisfy this requirement, and the relief sought was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for substituted service dismissed; balance of relief postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The application for substituted service is dismissed.
  • The balance of the relief is postponed sine die.