Roadseal (Pty) Ltd v Maduludi (Pty) Ltd and Another (7914/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 474 (15 May 2025)

Roadseal (Pty) Ltd v Maduludi (Pty) Ltd and Another (7914/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 474 (15 May 2025)

The court found that the default judgment was not granted jointly and severally against both defendants, but only against one. The application for a declaration of executability was therefore defective, as it sought relief against both defendants. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 474
Parties
Applicant: Roadseal (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Maduludi (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mokiri Mametja Mangwale
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2025
Case Number
7914/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Declaration of Immovable Property Specially Executable Under Rule 46(1) Following Default Judgment and Unsuccessful Writs of Execution.
Outcome
Application removed from the roll; no costs order against defendants for the week of 12 May 2025.
Judges
H F Jacobs
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Writ of Execution, Rule 46 Application, Service of Process, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Default Judgment Writ of Execution Rule 46 Application Service of Process Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roadseal (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Maduludi (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mokiri Mametja Mangwale

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Declaration of Immovable Property Specially Executable Under Rule 46(1) Following Default Judgment and Unsuccessful Writs of Execution.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order declaring the defendant's immovable property specially executable under Rule 46(1).
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment was granted against both defendants or only one.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were properly notified of the application and set down.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the default judgment was not granted jointly and severally against both defendants, but only against one. The application for a declaration of executability was therefore defective, as it sought relief against both defendants. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to notify the defendants of the application and set down. However, any error in the original judgment must be rectified through proper procedures, not by way of the present application. The court held that the shortcomings in the application were not attributable to the respondents, and thus costs for the week of 12 May 2025 should not be awarded against them.

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll; no costs order against defendants for the week of 12 May 2025.

Orders

  • The application is removed from the roll.
  • The plaintiff/applicant shall not recover any costs for the week of 12 May 2025 from the defendants.