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
Sheriff of High Court, Halfway House v Maepa (21581/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 764 (4 August 2025)
The High Court set aside a prior sale in execution and authorised the Sheriff to resell the immovable property, finding nojoinder and demand objections unpersuasive.
Praia Roche 122 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa (Leave to Appeal) (658/2022) [2025] ZANCHC 65 (20 June 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of 17 months in filing the application for leave to appeal. The explanation offered was vague, lacked specific dates and details, and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicants attempted to raise new grounds not canvassed in the main proceedings, which is impermissible in motion proceedings. The court held that the applicants' conduct was dilatory and aimed at frustrating the execution process. There were no prospects of success or compelling reasons to grant leave to…
Source excerpt
Transasia 1 (Pty) Ltd v Sherif of the High Court and Others (10895/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 60 (26 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent spoliation-style application, holding that the sheriff acted lawfully under a subsisting court order when removing an excavator.
Sheriff, Randburg West v Dyna-Edge Trading and Projects CC and Another (2019/21474) [2024] ZAGPJHC 112 (2 February 2024)
The High Court cancelled a sale in execution after the purchasers failed to pay levies and interest due under the conditions of sale, triggering Rule 46(11).
Assetline South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Manhattan Delux Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (22939/20) [2020] ZAGPJHC 188 (18 August 2020)
The court found that none of the grounds of appeal advanced by the respondents had merit. The respondents failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence for the admission of new evidence on appeal. The requirements of Rule 46 and Rule 46A were properly considered and applied, with no evidence that the property was the primary residence of an indigent debtor or that foreclosure would render anyone homeless. The costs order in favour of the applicant's attorney was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, as the allegations against him were unsubstantiated. The judge's prior involvement…
Source excerpt
Sheriff of the High Court, for the District Lydenburg v MT Prosper Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another; In re: Firstrand Bank Ltd v Mashiane (1350/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 712 (15 November 2017)
The High Court postponed a Rule 46(11) application to cancel a sale in execution, finding the sheriff’s report lacked sufficient detail on compliance and costs.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Letlhaka (31811/2002) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1213 (11 November 2016)
The High Court granted a bank’s application to declare a mortgaged home specially executable under Rule 46, finding the debtor had made no payments for years.
Adegbuyi v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (19958/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 703 (16 August 2016)
Rescission of a monetary judgment was refused, but rescission of an execution order against a primary residence was granted for lack of proper notice and relevant circumstances.
STT Sales (Pty) Ltd v Darrell and Another (21843/11) [2014] ZAGPJHC 420 (16 October 2014)
The court found that the first respondent admitted the judgment debt and that there was no factual dispute regarding his indebtedness. The respondent's claim of dual primary residences was rejected as contradictory, and the court held that a person cannot have two primary residences for the purposes of constitutional protection. The respondent resides at another property, so execution against the property in question would not affect his right to adequate housing under section 26 of the Constitution. The requirements for special execution under Rule 46(1)(a)(i) were satisfied, and there was n…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v White Rock Property Trading Pty Ltd (26077/2008) [2014] ZAGPPHC 259 (29 April 2014)
The court held that a rule 46(11) application was unnecessary where the sheriff’s report was already required, and disallowed costs for the application.
Explore more
