South Africa Case Law

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the Andre De Leeuw Familietrust NO and Others (2023/071111 ; 2023/074271)

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Trustees for the Time Being of the Andre De Leeuw Familietrust NO and Others (2023/071111 ; 2023/074271) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1382 (11 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/071111 ; 2023/074271

Judge

J.P. Vorster

The High Court provisionally sequestrated the Andre De Leeuw Familietrust and the joint estate of the De Leeuw spouses, finding prima facie insolvency and creditor advantage.

• Provisional Sequestration
• Advantage To Creditors
• Acts Of Insolvency
• Suretyship Liability
• Judgment Enforcement
• Provisional-sequestration

Nedbank Limited and Another v Eldin and Others (40418/2017)

Nedbank Limited and Another v Eldin and Others (40418/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 758 (16 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

40418/2017

Judge

N.J. Graves

High Court confirmed a sale in execution after the reserve price was not met, rejected postponement, and awarded costs against the respondent.

• Sale In Execution
• Reserve Price
• Sectional Titles Act
• Judgment Enforcement
• Levies And Rates
• Sale-in-execution

ABSA Bank Limited v Howell and Others (16168/17)

ABSA Bank Limited v Howell and Others (16168/17) [2024] ZAGPJHC 739 (2 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16168/17

Judge

GC Wright

The High Court dismissed ABSA’s opponents’ application for leave to appeal against an order reducing the reserve price for auction of their property.

• Leave To Appeal
• Judgment Enforcement
• Reserve Price Reduction
• Municipal Charges
• Leave-to-appeal
• Sale-in-execution

Newnet Property (Pty) Ltd trading as Sunshine Hospital v Road Accident Fund and Another (053391/2024)

Newnet Property (Pty) Ltd trading as Sunshine Hospital v Road Accident Fund and Another (053391/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 551 (13 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

053391/2024

Judge

N P Mali

The court found that the application was urgent only insofar as it concerned the judgment debt of R92,085,106.36, as the applicant would not be afforded substantial redress in the ordinary course due to the risk of hospital closure and harm to patients. However, the relief sought was essentially a repetition of previous orders already granted against the first respondent, and no new case was made against the second respondent beyond his statutory role. The matter was res judicata, as the applicant had already obtained judgments and attempted execution. The application to compel further paymen…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Application
• Mandamus
• Judgment Enforcement
• Public Entity Liability

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Praia Rocha 122 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (658/2022)

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Praia Rocha 122 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (658/2022) [2023] ZANCHC 46 (21 July 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

658/2022

Judge

Mamosebo

The High Court reconsidered costs after a Rule 34 settlement offer but found the offer did not beat the judgment and reinstated the original costs order.

• Rule 34 Offer To Settle
• Costs Award
• Special Executability
• Judgment Enforcement
• Rule-34-offer-to-settle
• Costs-award

Boraki v Minister of Police (CA&R 37/2021)

Boraki v Minister of Police (CA&R 37/2021) [2023] ZANCHC 22 (2 June 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 37/2021

Judges

Phatshoane, Lever

The High Court upheld an appeal against a magistrate’s stay of execution, finding the underlying appeal had lapsed and there was no basis to suspend the writ.

• Stay Of Execution
• Appeal Lapsing
• Magistrates Courts Act
• Interdict
• Judgment Enforcement
• Stay-of-execution

Van den Bos v Ndevu and Another (2021-37755)

Van den Bos v Ndevu and Another (2021-37755) [2023] ZAGPJHC 421 (4 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021-37755

Judge

B.P. Manyathi

The High Court declared a sectional-title unit specially executable to satisfy unpaid levies and charges, rejecting challenges to the administrator’s authority and the judgment debt.

• Special Executability
• Judgment Enforcement
• Sectional Title Scheme
• Locus Standi
• Default Judgment
• Special-executability

Blackberry Limited and Another v De Bod and Others

Blackberry Limited and Another v De Bod and Others [2022] ZAGPPHC 1005 (12 December 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8021/2022

Judge

Swanepoel

The court found that the applicants had exhausted all reasonable means to satisfy the judgment debt, including attachment of movables and shares, which proved fruitless. The respondents failed to provide credible evidence of alternative means to pay the debt, and their tendered monthly payment and speculative VAT refund were insufficient and unsupported. The opposition based on alleged unlawful termination of an agreement was irrelevant to the enforceability of the judgment. The presence of a minor child with special needs at the property, while considered, was not supported by confirmatory e…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 46a
• Sale In Execution
• Reserve Price
• Primary Residence Protection
• Judgment Enforcement

Kolisang v Alegrand General Dealers and Auctioneers and Another (31301 /2020)

Kolisang v Alegrand General Dealers and Auctioneers and Another (31301 /2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 431 (28 June 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

31301 /2020

Judge

Nichols

The court found that the director, Ismail Dawood Jassat, deliberately misrepresented the year of the motor vehicle to the applicant, inducing her to purchase it. This misrepresentation was fraudulent, dishonest, or improper and constituted unconscionable abuse of the company’s juristic personality. The director’s conduct, including his attempts to evade liability through resignation and a fabricated sale agreement, demonstrated a disregard for the company’s separate legal identity and fiduciary duties. The court held that section 20(9) of the Companies Act empowers it to pierce the corporate…

Source excerpt

• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Director Liability
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Companies Act Section 20 9
• Judgment Enforcement

Da Cruz v Bernardo (2020/26428)

Da Cruz v Bernardo (2020/26428) [2021] ZAGPJHC 493; [2022] 1 All SA 414 (GJ); 2022 (2) SA 185 (GJ) (10 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/26428

Judge

Turner AJ

The court held that the in duplum rule does not limit mora interest on a liquidated debt under the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, and enforced the prior interest order.

• In Duplum Rule
• Prescribed Rate Of Interest Act
• Mora Interest
• Judgment Enforcement
• In-duplum-rule
• Mora-interest