Van Der Merwe N.O. v Du Plessis, In Re; Nedbank Limited v Jacobs (12149/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 214 (22 April 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZAGPPHC 214
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
- Case number
- 12149/2012
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
- Case number
- 12149/2012
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that, in terms of rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to file a report and that an application which results in unnecessary costs is not necessary. The court relied on the precedent set in Sheriff, Hlabisa and Nongoma v Shobeka, confirming that the process should be streamlined to avoid unnecessary expenditure. Accordingly, the court granted the relief sought in prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion, postponed prayer 2 sine die, and dismissed prayer 4.
Court disposition
Order granted in terms of prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion; prayer 2 postponed sine die; prayer 4 dismissed.
Orders
- An order is granted in terms of prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion.
- Prayer 2 is postponed sine die.
- Prayer 4 is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Maria Cornelia Magdalena Van Der Merwe N.O.
ApplicantKarel Ferdinand Du Plessis o.b.o. Camel Friends CC
RespondentNedbank Limited
PlaintiffJohannes Rudolph Jacobs
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 contended that the application under rule 46(11) was necessary to obtain the relief sought in the notice of motion, specifically prayers 1 and 3.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the sheriff is required to file a report and that the application results in unnecessary costs, which is not necessary in terms of the rule and relevant case law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sheriff, Hlabisa and Nongoma v Shobeka 2009 (6) SA 272 (KZN)
Rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court requires the sheriff to file a report, and an application resulting in unnecessary costs is not necessary.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, in terms of rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to file a report and that an application which results in unnecessary costs is not necessary. The court relied on the precedent set in Sheriff, Hlabisa and Nongoma v Shobeka, confirming that the process should be streamlined to avoid unnecessary expenditure. Accordingly, the court granted the relief sought in prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion, postponed prayer 2 sine die, and dismissed prayer 4.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of minimizing unnecessary costs in procedural applications under the Uniform Rules of Court.
- The judgment reinforces the principle that the sheriff's report suffices in most cases, and additional applications should be avoided unless strictly necessary.
Court disposition
Order granted in terms of prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion; prayer 2 postponed sine die; prayer 4 dismissed.
- An order is granted in terms of prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion.
- Prayer 2 is postponed sine die.
- Prayer 4 is dismissed.
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: 12149/2012
Date: 22 April 2014
In the matter between:
MARIA CORNELIA MAGDALENA VAN DER MERWE N.O…………………...Applicant
and
KAREL
FERDINAND DU PLESSIS
o.b.o. CAMEL FRIENDS CC……………………………………………………….Respondent
In Re -
NEDBANK LIMITED………………………………………………………………..Plaintiff
JACOBS; JOHANNES RUDOLPH…………………………………………………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 prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion.
2. Prayer 2 is postponed sine die.
3. Prayer 4 is dismissed.
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.