Sheriff of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg South v Motsoeneng (58266/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 250 (14 April 2014)

Sheriff of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg South v Motsoeneng (58266/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 250 (14 April 2014)

The court held that, in terms of rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to file a report only where necessary, and that the application in this instance resulted in unnecessary costs. The deposit paid by the respondent must be held in trust by the applicant pending the finalisation of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 250
Parties
Applicant: Sheriff of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg South; Respondent: Mookho Selina Motsoeneng; Plaintiff: Standard Bank of South Africa; Defendant: Sipho Godphrey Zondi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
58266/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Under Rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Outcome
Order granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion; deposit to be held in trust; prayers 4, 5, and 6 postponed sine die.
Judges
Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Rule 46 Uniform Rules, Sheriff Report, Costs of Application
Civil Procedure Rule 46 Uniform Rules Sheriff Report Costs of Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheriff of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg South

Applicant

Mookho Selina Motsoeneng

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa

Plaintiff

Sipho Godphrey Zondi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Under Rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff is required to file a report and application under rule 46(11).
  2. 2 Whether the incurring of unnecessary costs by such application is justified.
  3. 3 How the deposit paid by the respondent should be managed pending finalisation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in terms of rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to file a report only where necessary, and that the application in this instance resulted in unnecessary costs. The deposit paid by the respondent must be held in trust by the applicant pending the finalisation of the application. Prayers 4, 5, and 6 are postponed sine die, reflecting the court's intention to avoid unnecessary expenditure and procedural steps unless strictly required by the rules.

Court Disposition

Order granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion; deposit to be held in trust; prayers 4, 5, and 6 postponed sine die.

Orders

  • An order is granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion.
  • The applicant is directed to keep on trust the deposit paid by the respondent, pending the finalisation of the application.