South Africa Case Law

Pinehurst Lodge Body Corporate v Fouche and Others (2024/067958)

Pinehurst Lodge Body Corporate v Fouche and Others (2024/067958) [2025] ZAGPJHC 132 (24 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/067958

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court declined to grant process-in-aid for enforcement of the Magistrates' Court judgment against the respondent's primary residence. The court found that the Magistrates' Court possesses all necessary powers to order and oversee execution against immovable property, including primary residences, and that process-in-aid is only appropriate where the lower court cannot effectively enforce its own judgment. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the Magistrates' Court was institutionally incapable of granting the relief sought, instead merely expressing dissatisfaction with the manne…

Source excerpt

• Process In Aid
• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Nulla Bona Return

Van Den Bos NO v Maluleke and Others (11192/2020)

Van Den Bos NO v Maluleke and Others (11192/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 594 (22 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11192/2020

Judge

S Yacoob

The court found that the applicant failed to provide substantive evidence that the magistrates' court systematically stonewalls applications for special executability or that process-in-aid was necessary. The applicant's affidavit was vague and generalized, lacking specific proof of inability to obtain relief in the magistrates' court. The court reaffirmed that locus standi objections had no merit, but held that the process-in-aid remedy is discretionary and must be supported by concrete facts. As the applicant did not meet this threshold, the application was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Special Executability
• Process In Aid
• Sectional Title Scheme
• Locus Standi
• Primary Residence Protection

Van Den Bos N.O. v Mogoane and Others (2021/5838)

Van Den Bos N.O. v Mogoane and Others (2021/5838) [2022] ZAGPJHC 576 (18 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/5838

Judge

JJC Swanepoel

The applicant, as properly appointed administrator under section 16 of the Sectional Titles Schemes Managing Act, has locus standi to bring the application. The respondents' challenge to locus standi fails in light of previous judgments confirming the applicant's authority. The High Court has discretion to grant process-in-aid for enforcement of a Magistrate's Court judgment where effective remedies in the lower court are unavailable. The applicant's uncontested affidavit demonstrates repeated failures to obtain special execution orders in the Magistrates' Courts, justifying recourse to the H…

Source excerpt

• Special Execution
• Sectional Titles Schemes Managing Act
• Process In Aid
• Reserve Price Setting
• Constitutional Access To Courts

T.C.M v L.R.M.M (HCAA09/2021)

T.C.M v L.R.M.M (HCAA09/2021) [2022] ZALMPPHC 3 (19 January 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA09/2021

Judges

GC Muller, Kganyago, M Naudè

The full court upheld an appeal against a contempt order over maintenance, holding that statutory remedies under the Maintenance Act had not been shown to be ineffective.

• Maintenance Orders
• Contempt Of Court
• Process In Aid
• Best Interests Of Child
• Urgent Application
• Lis Alibi Pendens

Van Den Bos N.O. v Mohloki and Others AND Van Den Bos N.O v Ngcameva and Another (2020/11190; 2020/11191)

Van Den Bos N.O. v Mohloki and Others AND Van Den Bos N.O v Ngcameva and Another (2020/11190; 2020/11191) [2021] ZAGPJHC 395; 2022 (2) SA 616 (GJ) (2 September 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/11190; 2020/11191

Judge

Gilbert AJ

The High Court does possess jurisdiction to enforce magistrates' court orders by way of process-in-aid, but such relief is discretionary and only available where effective remedies are not available in the magistrates' court or where good and sufficient reason is shown. In this case, the applicant failed to provide any factual basis or evidence in the affidavits as to why the magistrates' court remedies were ineffective or why good and sufficient reason existed for the High Court to intervene. The mere election to approach the High Court does not entitle the applicant to relief where the magi…

Source excerpt

• Process In Aid
• Special Executability
• Uniform Rule 46a
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Judicial Oversight

Dreyer v Wiebols and Others (11/45575)

Dreyer v Wiebols and Others (11/45575) [2012] ZAGPJHC 247; 2013 (4) SA 498 (GSJ) (5 December 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11/45575

Judge

Coppin

The High Court dismissed an application to hold respondents in contempt of a Magistrate’s Court order, finding no basis to assume process-in-aid jurisdiction.

• Contempt Of Court
• Process In Aid
• Specific Performance
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Contempt-of-court
• Process-in-aid