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
ABSA Bank Limited v Kebeni and Another (19782/2012) [2025] ZAWCHC 315 (28 May 2025)
The High Court relaxed res judicata after abandonment of an earlier execution order, granted a fresh Rule 46A execution order with reserve price, and dismissed a constitutional challenge.
Classic Crown Properties 55 CC and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (A314/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1781 (5 October 2023)
The High Court held that Rule 46A does not apply retrospectively to pending execution proceedings and dismissed the appeal against Standard Bank.
Nedbank Limited v Mphambela and Another (1267/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 575 (19 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the 14-day delay in filing the summary judgment application, which was not excessive and did not result from a deliberate disregard of the rules. The reasons advanced were accepted as sufficient for condonation in the interests of justice. On the merits, the respondents failed to raise a bona fide defence, relying instead on vague and unsupported averments regarding discussions and an offer to purchase that did not materialize. The respondents did not provide factual evidence or guarantees to support their claims. The co…
Source excerpt
Assetline South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Manhattan Delux Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (30996/19) [2020] ZAGPJHC 97 (10 May 2020)
The court found that the defence of lis pendens was inapplicable as the parties, causes of action, and subject matter in the pending litigation were not identical to the present application. Assetline's claim arose from a loan agreement and mortgage bond, whereas the other litigation concerned a sale agreement. The requirements of Rule 46 and Rule 46A were satisfied; the property was owned by a juristic person, and there was no credible evidence that it was the primary residence of any respondent. Even if Rule 46A applied, the respondents failed to provide substantiated evidence that executio…
Source excerpt
Bartezky and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (13668/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 9 (16 February 2017)
The High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to Uniform Rule 46(12), holding that sales in execution without a reserve price do not amount to arbitrary deprivation of property.
Explore more
