Skosana and Others v Sheriff of the High Court, Tshwane North East and Others (26398/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 353 (29 April 2020)

Skosana and Others v Sheriff of the High Court, Tshwane North East and Others (26398/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 353 (29 April 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically by not providing the required guarantees for the outstanding debt. The third respondent was entitled to enforce the writ of execution and proceed with the sale in execution. The prior sale agreement with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 353
Parties
Applicant: Mangaliso Samuel Skosana; Applicant: Susan Elena Skosana; Applicant: Lenah Matlakala Khumalo; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court, Tshwane North East; Respondent: Eugene Botha; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2020
Case Number
26398/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Cancellation of Sale in Execution and Related Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Sale in Execution, Mortgage Default, Writ of Execution, Condonation, Settlement Agreement
Civil Procedure Land and Property Sale in Execution Mortgage Default Writ of Execution Condonation Settlement Agreement

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mangaliso Samuel Skosana

Applicant

Susan Elena Skosana

Applicant

Lenah Matlakala Khumalo

Applicant

Sheriff of the High Court, Tshwane North East

Respondent

Eugene Botha

Respondent

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Cancellation of Sale in Execution and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale in execution of the property should be set aside due to alleged procedural irregularities.
  2. 2 Whether the writ of execution had expired or was invalid at the time of the auction sale.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' failure to provide guarantees justified the third respondent's actions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically by not providing the required guarantees for the outstanding debt. The third respondent was entitled to enforce the writ of execution and proceed with the sale in execution. The prior sale agreement with the third applicant did not affect the validity of the auction sale, as the applicants did not meet the conditions required by the third respondent. The writ of execution issued by the High Court does not expire until the debt is satisfied, and the applicants' reliance on Magistrates' Court rules was misplaced. The procedural non-compliance alleged by the applicants did not go to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.