Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Nigsa Property Investment (Pty) Ltd v Acting Sheriff for Randburg Southwest (16189/2012) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1309 (10 December 2024)
A purchaser in execution sought refund of occupational rent and amendment of the sheriff’s distribution plan, but the High Court dismissed the application.
Sheriff, Randburg West v Dyna-Edge Trading and Projects CC and Another (2019/21474) [2024] ZAGPJHC 112 (2 February 2024)
The High Court cancelled a sale in execution after the purchasers failed to pay levies and interest due under the conditions of sale, triggering Rule 46(11).
Sheriff of the High Court, for the District Lydenburg v Prosper Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another In re: Firstrand Bank Ltd v Mashiane (1350/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 722 (15 November 2017)
The court postponed a Rule 46(11) application to cancel a sale in execution, finding insufficient information on compliance with Rule 46 and Form 21.
Sheriff of the High Court, for the District Lydenburg v MT Prosper Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another; In re: Firstrand Bank Ltd v Mashiane (1350/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 712 (15 November 2017)
The High Court postponed a Rule 46(11) application to cancel a sale in execution, finding the sheriff’s report lacked sufficient detail on compliance and costs.
Bholat and Another v Louw and Another (2013/40364) [2014] ZAGPJHC 386 (15 August 2014)
The court held that buyers at a sale in execution had complied with the conditions of sale, so the claim for interest had lapsed. They recovered the net amount paid under protest.
Bell Rae v Sheriff of the High Court Kempton Park South and Others (15173/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 153 (5 August 2014)
The court found that the sheriff was within his rights to condone the purchaser's late payment of the balance of the purchase price and was not obliged to cancel the sale. The applicant, as execution debtor, had no right to interfere in the execution process or challenge the sheriff's discretion. The conduct of the sheriff did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA, and the applicant failed to establish grounds for review under either common law or PAJA. Although ABSA's conduct created some expectation for the applicant, this did not translate into a legal right or prejudice…
Source excerpt
Explore more
