South Africa Case Law

Nedbank Limited v Ndawala and Others (2022/002174)

Nedbank Limited v Ndawala and Others (2022/002174) [2025] ZAGPJHC 732 (24 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/002174

Judge

JL Bhengu

The court found that the first respondent was indebted to the applicant under the home loan agreement, with arrears exceeding R977,923.49 and no credible payment arrangements made since August 2021. Statutory compliance with the National Credit Act was established. The respondent's claims regarding alternative means of satisfying the debt, such as shares and potential business funding, were unsupported by evidence and lacked credibility. The defences raised, including reckless lending and excessive interest, were contradicted by the respondent's own admissions and the terms of the loan agreem…

Source excerpt

• Execution Against Primary Residence
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Reserve Price Determination
• Judicial Oversight
• Foreclosure
• Contractual Enforcement

Nedbank Limited v Umvoti Traders 1006 CC and Another (1600/2022)

Nedbank Limited v Umvoti Traders 1006 CC and Another (1600/2022) [2025] ZAECMKHC 30 (18 March 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1600/2022

Judge

Laing

The applicant satisfied the requirements of rule 46A for execution against the primary residence. The sheriff's nulla bona return confirmed no movable assets were available. The second respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence of alternative means to settle the debt, despite claiming improved financial circumstances and proposing a monthly payment plan. The court found the proposal inadequate and unsupported by evidence. The applicant's compliance with rule 46A and the lack of acceptable alternatives justified execution against the property. The reserve price was set at R 1,377,610, ca…

Source excerpt

• Rule 46a Execution
• Primary Residence Protection
• Reserve Price Setting
• Mortgage Enforcement
• Judicial Oversight
• Party And Party Costs

ABSA Bank Limited v Mabunda N.O in his capacity as trustee of Mbunda family trust and Others (5064/2021)

ABSA Bank Limited v Mabunda N.O in his capacity as trustee of Mbunda family trust and Others (5064/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 18 (5 March 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

5064/2021

Judge

Managa

The High Court granted default judgment for a mortgage debt, declared trust-owned immovable property specially executable, and set a reserve price.

• Default Judgment
• Mortgage Enforcement
• Special Executability
• Judicial Oversight
• Rule 46a
• Suretyship

SS Aloe Ridge v Nawa and Others (2023/131277)

SS Aloe Ridge v Nawa and Others (2023/131277) [2025] ZAGPJHC 140 (17 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/131277

Judge

Liebenberg

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against refusal of Rule 46A execution, finding no reasonable prospects of success and that less drastic remedies existed.

• Execution Against Immovable Property
• Rule 46a
• Judicial Oversight
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Interest On Judgment Debt
• Rule-46a

J & R Hartman Boerdery CC and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (HCAA 31/2023)

J & R Hartman Boerdery CC and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (HCAA 31/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 13 (22 January 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA 31/2023

Judges

M G Phatudi, G Diamond, M Bresler

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that their constitutional rights under Section 26(3) were implicated. The court found that the procedural requirements of Uniform Rule 46A were adequately considered by the court a quo, and the appellants did not demonstrate that they fell within the vulnerable category protected by the rule. The respondent's locus standi was established, and the outstanding balances were substantiated by certificates of balance. The appellants' denials were deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient to raise a bona fide disput…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 46a
• Special Executability
• Locus Standi
• Certificate Of Balance
• Section 26 Constitution
• Judicial Oversight

Ramasilo v S (CAP 26/2024 ; CA 27/2024)

Ramasilo v S (CAP 26/2024 ; CA 27/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 317 (19 December 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CAP 26/2024 ; CA 27/2024

Judges

A H Petersen, A Reddy

The High Court dismissed Ramasilo’s sentence appeal and Malebatso’s conviction appeal, granted Malebatso’s sentence appeal, and referred registrar misconduct for investigation.

• Leave To Appeal
• Administrative Misconduct
• Minimum Sentencing
• Judicial Oversight
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Firearms Control Act

SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Hlongwane (17048/2021)

SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Hlongwane (17048/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1275; 2025 (3) SA 640 (GP) (4 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

17048/2021

Judges

Swanepoel, Neukircher, Retief

The Full Court held that reconsideration applications under Uniform Rule 46A(9) must be heard in open court, not chambers, unless special circumstances exist. The process is initiated by the Sheriff filing a report within five days of a failed auction, which must be served on both the execution creditor and judgment debtor. The execution creditor must then file a supplementary affidavit with detailed information, and personal service on the judgment debtor is required. The court retains wide powers to revisit the entire order, including the declaration of executability, and may sanction priva…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 46a
• Reserve Price Reconsideration
• Judicial Oversight
• Special Executability
• Personal Service
• Constitutional Right To Housing

Ndabeni and Others v Premier Kagiso Mokgosi and Others (Reasons) (6058/2024)

Ndabeni and Others v Premier Kagiso Mokgosi and Others (Reasons) (6058/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 292 (3 December 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

6058/2024

Judge

T Masike

Urgent application dismissed for lack of locus standi, defective affidavits, and no proper basis for the interdict sought. Costs were awarded against the first applicant.

• Locus Standi
• Urgent Interdict
• Founding Affidavit Requirements
• Commissioning Of Affidavits
• Judicial Oversight
• Locus-standi

Body Corporate of Monterey v Zakwe (AR483/2023)

Body Corporate of Monterey v Zakwe (AR483/2023) [2024] ZAKZPHC 117 (29 November 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR483/2023

Judges

Olsen, Shapiro

The court held that Rule 43A of the Magistrates' Court Rules requires personal service on the judgment debtor in every application to declare residential immovable property executable, regardless of whether the property is the primary residence. The status of the property as a primary residence is a factual issue that must be ventilated before the court, and the judgment debtor is entitled to be heard on this issue. The absence of the debtor from the property does not dispense with the requirement of personal service unless substituted service is authorized by the court. The decision in Bushm…

Source excerpt

• Execution Against Residential Property
• Personal Service Requirements
• Magistrates Court Rule 43a
• Uniform Rule 46a
• Judicial Oversight
• Primary Residence Determination

S B Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Manyoni & Gija Investments CC and Another (790/2024)

S B Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Manyoni & Gija Investments CC and Another (790/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 289 (12 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

790/2024

Judge

TL MANYE

The High Court enforced a breached settlement order, granted judgment for the outstanding bond debt, and declared the mortgaged residential property specially executable.

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Sale In Execution
• Settlement Agreement
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Primary Residence Protection
• Judicial Oversight