South Africa Case Law

Merchant Commercial Finance 1 (Pty) Ltd t/a Merchant Factors v Hlantini Management and Finance (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/061204)

Merchant Commercial Finance 1 (Pty) Ltd t/a Merchant Factors v Hlantini Management and Finance (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/061204) [2025] ZAGPJHC 615 (18 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/061204

Judge

Crutchfield

The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll, finding no urgency and holding the applicant failed to show substantial redress was unavailable in the ordinary course.

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Condonation
• Reinstatement Of Appeal
• Interim Interdict
• Default Judgment
• Execution Against Property

Sheriff of the High Court, Cape Town West v Foster and Another (21464/2018 ; 8526/2019)

Sheriff of the High Court, Cape Town West v Foster and Another (21464/2018 ; 8526/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 397 (28 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21464/2018 ; 8526/2019

Judge

J Cloete

Interpleader dispute over attached movable goods, with competing claims by an execution creditor and Ms Kirst. The court mostly upheld Ms Kirst’s ownership claim.

• Interpleader Proceedings
• Onus Of Proof
• Ownership Of Attached Goods
• Community Of Property
• Execution Against Property
• Interpleader-proceedings

Sheriff of the High Court for the District of Bellville and Another v Walker (4047/2021)

Sheriff of the High Court for the District of Bellville and Another v Walker (4047/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 214 (31 October 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4047/2021

Judge

Mantame

The court found that the claimant failed to prove exclusive ownership of the majority of the attached items. Despite being married out of community of property with accrual, the evidence showed that the finances and assets of the claimant and respondent were intermingled, with household income generated from the respondent's close corporation and assets purchased for joint use. The claimant produced no conclusive proof, such as receipts or invoices, for most items and conceded that the business and personal finances were intertwined. Only two items—the Hyundai motor vehicle and the Blackwood…

Source excerpt

• Interpleader Proceedings
• Ownership Of Attached Goods
• Marriage Out Of Community Of Property
• Burden Of Proof
• Execution Against Property

Statusfin Financial Service (Pty) Ltd v Carstens and Another (23807/2018)

Statusfin Financial Service (Pty) Ltd v Carstens and Another (23807/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 803 (17 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23807/2018

Judge

Neukircher

The High Court upheld Statusfin’s claim against two sureties, rejected the defence that the debt consolidation agreement was void, and ordered execution against specified properties.

• Suretyship Liability
• Principal Debt
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Certificate Of Balance
• Execution Against Property
• Insolvency Proceedings

Absa Bank Limited v Botha and Another (2504/2020)

Absa Bank Limited v Botha and Another (2504/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 63 (30 November 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2504/2020

Judge

G.G. Goosen

Default judgment was granted for Absa Bank on an unpaid mortgage debt, and two investment properties were declared specially executable subject to reserve prices.

• Default Judgment
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• National Credit Act
• Execution Against Property
• Reserve Price Setting
• Interest On Debt

D.B v Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd and Others (15857/2018)

D.B v Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd and Others (15857/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 649 (30 September 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15857/2018

Judge

N.P. Mali

The High Court dismissed an application to release attached movables, holding that a divorce settlement could not defeat third-party creditor rights.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Attachment Of Property
• Community Of Property
• Divorce Settlement
• Execution Against Property
• Attachment-of-property

Schleyer and Another v Marschall (2020/819)

Schleyer and Another v Marschall (2020/819) [2021] ZAGPPHC 540 (19 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2020/819

Judge

Nochumsohn

The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs by incola defendants against a German peregrinus, finding no basis to order security.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Immovable Property Valuation
• Execution Against Property
• Security-for-costs
• Peregrinus-and-incola

Meyersdal Nature Estate Homeowners Association NOC and Another v Farrar and Others (2019/17644)

Meyersdal Nature Estate Homeowners Association NOC and Another v Farrar and Others (2019/17644) [2020] ZAGPJHC 217 (4 September 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/17644

Judge

FA Snyckers

The High Court granted an anti-dissipation interdict over trust funds to secure cost awards against the respondents, finding a real risk of asset dissipation.

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Costs Awards
• Execution Against Property
• Anti-dissipation-interdict
• Costs-awards

Land Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Du Plessis NO and Others (5559/2019)

Land Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Du Plessis NO and Others (5559/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 136 (10 August 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5559/2019

Judge

DAFFUE

The applicant, as cessionary of the debts from Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd, established locus standi to enforce the loan and credit agreements against the respondents, who are trustees and sureties for the AVR Trust and Anrie Boerdery Trust. The respondents' denials were vague, unsubstantiated, and failed to create genuine disputes of fact. The promissory notes issued by the eleventh respondent confirmed liability for the capital amounts claimed. The application for postponement was dismissed as a tactical manoeuvre lacking bona fide grounds, and the Rule 7 and Rule 30 notices were found to be…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Suretyship Liability
• Execution Against Property
• Postponement Of Proceedings
• Locus Standi
• Rule 46a Application

Nkola v Argent Steel Group (Pty) Limited t/a Phoenix Steel (406/2017)

Nkola v Argent Steel Group (Pty) Limited t/a Phoenix Steel (406/2017) [2018] ZASCA 29; 2019 (2) SA 216 (SCA) (26 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

406/2017

Judges

Lewis, Saldulker, Swain, Pillay, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor is entitled to have immovable property declared specially executable where the debtor fails to make movable assets available for execution. The common law and Uniform Rules of Court do not require the creditor to seek out or execute against movables if the debtor does not cooperate. The sheriff's return indicated that Mr Nkola did not make sufficient movables available, satisfying the requirements of rule 46(1)(a). The constitutional protections for primary residences do not apply to debtors of substantial means who deliberately frustr…

Source excerpt

• Execution Against Property
• Judicial Discretion
• Nulla Bona Return
• Primary Residence Protection