Nkola v Argent Steel Group (Pty) Limited t/a Phoenix Steel (406/2017) [2018] ZASCA 29; 2019 (2) SA 216 (SCA) (26 March 2018)

Nkola v Argent Steel Group (Pty) Limited t/a Phoenix Steel (406/2017) [2018] ZASCA 29; 2019 (2) SA 216 (SCA) (26 March 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor is entitled to have immovable property declared specially executable where the debtor fails to make movable assets available for execution. The common law and Uniform Rules of Court do not require the creditor to seek out or execute against movables if the debtor does not cooperate. The sheriff's return indicated that Mr Nkola did not make sufficient movables available, satisfying the requirements of rule 46(1)(a). The constitutional protections for primary residences do not apply to debtors of substantial means who deliberately frustrate execution. The discretion exercised by the court of first instance was proper, and there was...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 29
Parties
Appellant: Bongile Samuel Nkola; Respondent: Argent Steel Group (Pty) Limited t/a Phoenix Steel
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Case Number
406/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Eastern Cape Division, Grahamstown
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lewis, Saldulker, Swain, Pillay, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Execution Against Property, Judicial Discretion, Nulla Bona Return, Primary Residence Protection
Civil Procedure Execution Against Property Judicial Discretion Nulla Bona Return Primary Residence Protection

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongile Samuel Nkola

Appellant

Argent Steel Group (Pty) Limited t/a Phoenix Steel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Eastern Cape Division, Grahamstown

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judgment creditor is entitled to have immovable property declared specially executable when the debtor alleges sufficient movable assets exist.
  2. 2 Whether the creditor must first execute against movable assets before proceeding against immovable property.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of rule 46(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court were met in this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor is entitled to have immovable property declared specially executable where the debtor fails to make movable assets available for execution. The common law and Uniform Rules of Court do not require the creditor to seek out or execute against movables if the debtor does not cooperate. The sheriff's return indicated that Mr Nkola did not make sufficient movables available, satisfying the requirements of rule 46(1)(a). The constitutional protections for primary residences do not apply to debtors of substantial means who deliberately frustrate execution. The discretion exercised by the court of first instance was proper, and there was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.