Nedbank Limited v Coetzee and Others (2022/025839)
Nedbank Limited v Coetzee and Others (2022/025839) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1085 (18 October 2024)
Applying the Plascon Evans rule, the court found that the applicant did not discharge the onus of proving that its representative made a timeous bid prior to the fall of the hammer. The evidence of the sheriff and third respondent was not inherently implausible and, on the crucial issue, there was insufficient difference between the parties' versions to justify a finding in favour of the applicant. The application was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
- Sale In Execution
- Onus Of Proof
- Plascon Evans Rule
- Auction Procedure