Poopedi and Others v SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd and Others (14557/20) [2025] ZAGPPHC 548 (23 May 2025)

Poopedi and Others v SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd and Others (14557/20) [2025] ZAGPPHC 548 (23 May 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any grounds for a stay of execution of the summary judgment, as the dispute regarding the first applicant's pension was unrelated to the judgment debt owed to the first respondent. The applicants did not appeal the summary judgment and later attempted to withdraw the stay application without the respondent's consent, which is impermissible without leave of the court. The declaratory relief application was also defective, as it was improperly served and instituted under the same case number as the summary judgment proceedings, despite involving new parties and substantive relief. The applicants failed to make out any case for...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 548
Parties
Applicant: Manapane Grace Poopedi; Applicant: Choene Lazarus Poopedi; Applicant: Ramatsobane Poopedi; Respondent: SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Sheriff: Boksburg North; Respondent: MEC: Gauteng Provincial Department of Education; Respondent: Director: Office of the District of Ekhurhuleni South; Respondent: The Chief Executive Officer of the Government Employees Pension Fund, Registrar of Deeds
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Case Number
14557/20
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution and Declaratory Relief Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Both the stay of execution and declaratory relief applications against the first respondent are dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale. The declaratory relief application against the second, third, and fourth respondents is postponed sine die, with an order for proper service.
Judges
SG Maritz
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Service of Process, Declaratory Relief, Summary Judgment, Special Executability
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Service of Process Declaratory Relief Summary Judgment Special Executability

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manapane Grace Poopedi

Applicant

Choene Lazarus Poopedi

Applicant

Ramatsobane Poopedi

Applicant

SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Sheriff: Boksburg North

Respondent

MEC: Gauteng Provincial Department of Education

Respondent

Director: Office of the District of Ekhurhuleni South

Respondent

The Chief Executive Officer of the Government Employees Pension Fund, Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution and Declaratory Relief Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established grounds for a stay of execution of the summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the declaratory relief application was properly instituted and served on all relevant respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have made out a case for declaratory relief against the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any grounds for a stay of execution of the summary judgment, as the dispute regarding the first applicant's pension was unrelated to the judgment debt owed to the first respondent. The applicants did not appeal the summary judgment and later attempted to withdraw the stay application without the respondent's consent, which is impermissible without leave of the court. The declaratory relief application was also defective, as it was improperly served and instituted under the same case number as the summary judgment proceedings, despite involving new parties and substantive relief. The applicants failed to make out any case for...

Court Disposition

Both the stay of execution and declaratory relief applications against the first respondent are dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale. The declaratory relief application against the second, third, and fourth respondents is postponed sine die, with an order for proper service.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application for a stay of execution is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
  • The applicants’ application for declaratory and ancillary relief against the first respondent is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.