Van Der Merwe N.O. v Du Plessis, In Re; Nedbank Limited v Jacobs (12149/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 214 (22 April 2014)

Van Der Merwe N.O. v Du Plessis, In Re; Nedbank Limited v Jacobs (12149/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 214 (22 April 2014)

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.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 214
Parties
Applicant: Maria Cornelia Magdalena Van Der Merwe N.O.; Respondent: Karel Ferdinand Du Plessis o.b.o. Camel Friends CC; Plaintiff: Nedbank Limited; Defendant: Johannes Rudolph Jacobs
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2014
Case Number
12149/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application Under Rule 46(11)
Outcome
Order granted in terms of prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion; prayer 2 postponed sine die; prayer 4 dismissed.
Judges
Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Uniform Rules of Court Rule 46, Sheriff Report Requirements, Costs in Application Proceedings
Civil Procedure Uniform Rules of Court Rule 46 Sheriff Report Requirements Costs in Application Proceedings

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Cornelia Magdalena Van Der Merwe N.O.

Applicant

Karel Ferdinand Du Plessis o.b.o. Camel Friends CC

Respondent

Nedbank Limited

Plaintiff

Johannes Rudolph Jacobs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application Under Rule 46(11)

Legal Issues

  1. 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. 2 Whether the incurring of unnecessary costs through such application is justified.

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.

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.