Van Den Bos v Ethel and Another (3176/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 668 (8 September 2022)

Van Den Bos v Ethel and Another (3176/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 668 (8 September 2022)

The applicant, as court-appointed administrator, has locus standi to bring the application based on the purposive interpretation of the appointment order and supporting case law. The respondent's defenses regarding the calculation of arrear levies and municipal valuation are unsubstantiated, as she does not deny non-payment since 2014 nor provide evidence of payments or inability to find alternative accommodation. The property is the respondent's primary residence, but judicial oversight under Rule 46A has been exercised, and the arrears far exceed the property's value. There is no basis to set a reserve price. The application for special executability and writ of execution is granted,...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 668
Parties
Applicant: Jan Van Den Bos; Respondent: Shivambu Nomathamsanqa Ethel; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2022
Case Number
3176/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Special Executability and Writ of Execution
Outcome
Application granted; property declared specially executable; writ of execution authorized; respondent to pay costs.
Judges
Matojane
Legal Topics
Special Executability, Writ of Execution, Sectional Titles Schemes, Arrear Levies, Reserve Price, Primary Residence Protection
Civil Procedure Land and Property Special Executability Writ of Execution Sectional Titles Schemes Arrear Levies Reserve Price Primary Residence Protection

Case Brief

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Van Den Bos

Applicant

Shivambu Nomathamsanqa Ethel

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Special Executability and Writ of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application as administrator of the body corporate.
  2. 2 Whether the property, being the respondent's primary residence, should be declared specially executable under Uniform Rule 46(1).
  3. 3 Whether a reserve price should be set for the sale of the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, as court-appointed administrator, has locus standi to bring the application based on the purposive interpretation of the appointment order and supporting case law. The respondent's defenses regarding the calculation of arrear levies and municipal valuation are unsubstantiated, as she does not deny non-payment since 2014 nor provide evidence of payments or inability to find alternative accommodation. The property is the respondent's primary residence, but judicial oversight under Rule 46A has been exercised, and the arrears far exceed the property's value. There is no basis to set a reserve price. The application for special executability and writ of execution is granted,...

Court Disposition

Application granted; property declared specially executable; writ of execution authorized; respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • The immovable property described as Door [....], Unit [....] in Pearlbrook, scheme number [....], at [....] B [....] Street, Hillbrow, Johannesburg, is declared specially executable.
  • The applicant is authorized to issue a writ of execution in respect of the property as envisaged in Uniform Rule 46(1)(a).