Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Mathobela (212/2000) [2001] ZANWHC 16 (29 March 2001)
The court refused to grant the order for cancellation of the auction due to multiple procedural defects in the plaintiff's supporting documentation. These included a mismatch in erf numbers between the sheriff's report and the mortgage bond documents, improper initialling and authentication of affidavits, use of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] ZANWHC 16
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd; Defendant: Ramasela Lettie Mathobela
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 212/2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Ruling on Auction Cancellation
- Outcome
- Order for cancellation of auction refused pending rectification of procedural defects.
- Judges
- M.T.R. Mogoeng
- Legal Topics
- Sheriff Report Irregularity, Affidavit Authentication, Mortgage Bond Registration, Auction Procedure
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd
Plaintiff
Ramasela Lettie Mathobela
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Ruling on Auction Cancellation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sheriff's report and supporting affidavits comply with procedural requirements for cancelling the auction.
- 2 Whether discrepancies in erf numbers and affidavit formalities invalidate the application for cancellation.
- 3 Whether the oath administration and dating of documents are legally sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused to grant the order for cancellation of the auction due to multiple procedural defects in the plaintiff's supporting documentation. These included a mismatch in erf numbers between the sheriff's report and the mortgage bond documents, improper initialling and authentication of affidavits, use of photostat copies instead of originals, and inconsistencies in the administration of oaths and dating of documents. The court held that these defects must be rectified before any order can be granted.
Court Disposition
Order for cancellation of auction refused pending rectification of procedural defects.
Orders
- The application for cancellation of the auction is refused until all identified procedural defects are rectified.
- The plaintiff must submit properly authenticated and original documents before the order will be considered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
CASE NO. 212/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
In the matter between:
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD PLAINTIFF
and
RAMASELA LETTIE MATHOBELA DEFENDANT
______________________________________________________________________
REASONS WHY AUCTION IS NOT CANCELLED
MOGOENG J.
I will only be prepared to grant an order prayed for as soon as the following problems are solved:
1.(a) The sheriffâs report reflects the Erf number as 4225 whereas the âConsent to registration of Bondâ and the âContinuing Covering Mortgage Bondâ state the Erf number as 4255;
(b) Only one person initialled page one of Mr Sedileâs affidavit instead of both the deponent and the Commissioner of oaths. (c) Page 2 of Mr Sedileâs affidavit, is:- (i) not the original page and this is evident from the signature of the deponent; (ii) in any event not initialled by the Commissioner of oaths. The original page, properly initialled is required. (d) Page 3 relates to an oath which was administered on an unspecified day and month in 1998. (i) It is also a photostat copy and this is clear from the signature. (ii) I have a problem with a deputy sheriff of Soshanguve administering an oath to the sheriff of Soshanguve. (iii) Page 3 does not even seem to relate to the deponent who is a man. It relates to a âsheâ.
(b) Only one person initialled page one of Mr Sedileâs affidavit instead of both the deponent and the Commissioner of oaths.
(c) Page 2 of Mr Sedileâs affidavit, is:-
(i) not the original page and this is evident from the signature of the deponent;
(ii) in any event not initialled by the Commissioner of oaths.
The original page, properly initialled is required.
(d) Page 3 relates to an oath which was administered on an unspecified day and month in 1998.
(i) It is also a photostat copy and this is clear from the signature.
(ii) I have a problem with a deputy sheriff of Soshanguve administering an oath to the sheriff of Soshanguve.
(iii) Page 3 does not even seem to relate to the deponent who is a man. It relates to a âsheâ.
(iv) The auction allegedly took place in July 2000. The aforegoing oath could, therefore, only have been administered thereafter and not about two years earlier. M.T.R. MOGOENG JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATED: 29 MARCH 2001
(iv) The auction allegedly took place in July 2000. The aforegoing oath could, therefore, only have been administered thereafter and not about two years earlier.
M.T.R. MOGOENG
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATED: 29 MARCH 2001
3