South Africa Case Law

Baphalaborwa Projects CC v T and L Civil Electrical Contractors CC and Others (45610/2018)

Baphalaborwa Projects CC v T and L Civil Electrical Contractors CC and Others (45610/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 630 (8 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

45610/2018

Judge

K Strydom

The court found that the application for leave to appeal had not lapsed and, in terms of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act, execution was barred. The attachment of the applicant's bank account was procedurally irregular as the sheriff failed to take possession of the document evidencing ownership and did not give written notice to the applicant, as required by Rule 45(8). The writ was improperly limited to the bank account without affording the applicant an opportunity to point out other assets. The respondent's reliance on Rule 45(12)(a) was misplaced, as the requirements for garnishe…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Attachment Of Bank Account
• Leave To Appeal
• Rule 45 Uniform Rules
• Attorney Own Client Costs

Patel v Netsianda Inc Attorneys and Another (722/2019)

Patel v Netsianda Inc Attorneys and Another (722/2019) [2024] ZALMPTHC 13 (8 February 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

722/2019

Judge

BF Gededger

The High Court set aside a writ of execution issued against an applicant, finding it invalid because no judgment or order made him a judgment debtor.

• Writ Of Execution
• Judgment Debt
• Rule 45 Uniform Rules
• Costs Order
• Writ-of-execution
• Judgment-debtor

Sunrise Technologies (PTY) Ltd v Friedshelf 422 (PTY) Ltd and Others (2022-17784)

Sunrise Technologies (PTY) Ltd v Friedshelf 422 (PTY) Ltd and Others (2022-17784) [2022] ZAGPJHC 722 (20 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-17784

Judge

Swanepoel AJ

The High Court granted an urgent interdict over advertising signs sold in execution, finding non-compliance with Rule 45(3) and unlawful interference with customer contracts.

• Sales In Execution
• Interdict
• Unlawful Competition
• Rule 45 Uniform Rules
• Contractual Interference
• Sales-in-execution

Petlane Oils (Pty) Limited v Shell South Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (28016/2013)

Petlane Oils (Pty) Limited v Shell South Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (28016/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 97 (1 April 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28016/2013

Judge

Mbongwe

The court found that the attachment and sale in execution of the applicant's claim were irregular and invalid. The sheriff deviated from the normal procedure prescribed by Rule 45(3) by attaching a predetermined incorporeal property without proper demand for satisfaction of the writ at the applicant's business address. The process was further flawed as there was no underlying court order or judgment validating the writ of execution. The respondents failed to follow due process, and the close relationship between the first and second respondents meant no third-party prejudice existed. The appl…

Source excerpt

• Attachment And Sale In Execution
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Rule 45 Uniform Rules
• Taxed Costs
• Setting Aside Irregular Process

Exclusive Access Trading 73 (Pty) Ltd v Bouwer and Another (3829/2009)

Exclusive Access Trading 73 (Pty) Ltd v Bouwer and Another (3829/2009) [2011] ZAECGHC 6 (1 March 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3829/2009

Judge

E Revelas

Court refused to set aside an attachment and stay execution, finding the set-off claim was not liquidated and the attachment defect was not fatal.

• Set Off
• Attachment Of Incorporeal Rights
• Sale In Execution
• Rule 45 Uniform Rules
• In Duplum Rule
• Set-off

Nurcha Finance Company (Pty) Limited v Sheriff of the High Court, Vryburg and Others (1525/04)

Nurcha Finance Company (Pty) Limited v Sheriff of the High Court, Vryburg and Others (1525/04) [2006] ZANWHC 13 (16 February 2006)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1525/04

Judge

R D Hendricks

The High Court held that a sheriff’s attachment of contract monies was invalid because the contractor had already ceded the rights to the applicant and Rule 45(8) was not complied with.

• Cession Of Rights
• Attachment Of Funds
• Rule 45 Uniform Rules
• Declaratory Relief
• Cession-of-rights
• Attachment-of-funds