Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v White Rock Property Trading Pty Ltd (26077/2008) [2014] ZAGPPHC 259 (29 April 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZAGPPHC 259
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
- Case number
- 26077/2008
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
- Case number
- 26077/2008
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the application in terms of rule 46(11) was not necessary, as the sheriff is required to file a report without the need for an application that would incur unnecessary costs. Accordingly, the court granted the order sought in prayer 1, postponed prayer 2 sine die, and did not allow costs for the application.
Court disposition
Order granted in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion; prayer 2 postponed sine die; costs of the application not allowed.
Orders
- Order is granted in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion.
- Prayer 2 is postponed sine die.
- Costs of the application are not allowed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd
ApplicantWhite Rock Property Trading Pty Ltd
RespondentStandard Bank of South Africa Ltd
PlaintiffSimon Tahpelo Matsepe
DefendantDimakatso Merriam Matsepe
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Application Under Rule 46(11)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an application under rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court is necessary when the sheriff is required to file a report.
- 02
Whether the incurring of unnecessary costs through such application is justified.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought an order in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion, relying on rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court, and argued that the sheriff's report was required for the proceedings.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not oppose the application but the court considered whether the application was necessary, given that the sheriff is required to file a report without incurring unnecessary costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sheriff, Hlabisa and Nongoma v Shobeka 2009 (6) SA 272 (KZN)
An application under rule 46(11) is not necessary where the sheriff is required to file a report, as unnecessary costs should be avoided.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the application in terms of rule 46(11) was not necessary, as the sheriff is required to file a report without the need for an application that would incur unnecessary costs. Accordingly, the court granted the order sought in prayer 1, postponed prayer 2 sine die, and did not allow costs for the application.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized that unnecessary applications should be avoided when the rules already provide for the required procedure.
- The avoidance of unnecessary costs is a principle that should guide parties in procedural matters.
Court disposition
Order granted in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion; prayer 2 postponed sine die; costs of the application not allowed.
- Order is granted in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion.
- Prayer 2 is postponed sine die.
- Costs of the application are not allowed.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
Case No: 26077/2008
DATE: 29 APRIL 2014
In the matter between:
STANDARD
BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD...................................................................Applicant
and
WHITE
ROCK PROPERTY TRADING PTY LTD........................................Respondent/Purchaser
(2013/074335/07)
In Re -
THE
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD..............................................................Plaintiff
SIMON
TAHPELO MATSEPE..................................................................................First Defendant
DIMAKATSO
M ERR I AM MATSEPE................................................................Second Defendant
JUDGMENT
JANSE
VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J
[1] This is an application in terms of the provisions of rule 46(11) of the Uniform rules of court.
[2] In terms of the rule, the sheriff should file a report and an application, which result in the incurring of unnecessary costs, is not necessary. [See: Sheriff, Hlabisa and Nongoma v Shobeka 2009 (6) SA 272 (KZN)].
ORDER
In the premises, I make the following order:
1. An order is granted in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion.
2. Prayer 2 is postponed sine die.
3. Costs of the application is not allowed.
JANSE VAN
NIEUWENHUIZEN J
JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH-AFRICA
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.