Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v White Rock Property Trading Pty Ltd (26077/2008) [2014] ZAGPPHC 259 (29 April 2014)
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...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] ZAGPPHC 259
- Parties
- Applicant: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd; Respondent: White Rock Property Trading Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd; Defendant: Simon Tahpelo Matsepe; Defendant: Dimakatso Merriam Matsepe
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 26077/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application Under Rule 46(11)
- Outcome
- Order granted in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion; prayer 2 postponed sine die; costs of the application not allowed.
- Judges
- Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
- Legal Topics
- Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 46, Sheriff Report, Costs Award
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
Applicant
White Rock Property Trading Pty Ltd
Respondent
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd
Plaintiff
Simon Tahpelo Matsepe
Defendant
Dimakatso Merriam Matsepe
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application Under Rule 46(11)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an application under rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court is necessary when the sheriff is required to file a report.
- 2 Whether the incurring of unnecessary costs through such application is justified.
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.
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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
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