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 the High Court, Halfway-Alexandra v Maepa (13604/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 728 (11 July 2025)
The High Court set aside a sale in execution after the purchaser failed to pay the balance and comply with the conditions of sale under Rule 46(11).
Roadseal (Pty) Ltd v Maduludi (Pty) Ltd and Another (7914/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 474 (15 May 2025)
The court removed an application to declare immovable property specially executable under Rule 46(1) after finding the underlying default judgment did not clearly run against both defendants.
ABSA Bank v Schuurman and Others (82184/16) [2024] ZAGPPHC 883 (13 September 2024)
The High Court declared mortgaged property specially executable under Rules 46(1) and 46A, but suspended execution until January 2025.
Business Partners Limited v Smith N.O and Others (1039/2017) [2021] ZAFSHC 303 (3 December 2021)
The court dismissed cancellation of a sale in execution, ordered the body corporate to issue a clearance certificate on payment of specified levies, and required a fresh guarantee.
Absa Bank Limited v Ahmanto and Another (29 December 2016) (38858/09) [2016] ZAGPJHC 355 (29 December 2016)
The court held that ABSA’s papers were sufficient on indebtedness, but referred to oral evidence the dispute whether the property was the respondent’s primary residence.
Sheriff of the High Court, Johannesburg East v Gudsoul Events and Projects (Pty) Ltd, In re: Firstrand Bank Limited v Thindisa (56924/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1014 (30 October 2016)
The High Court cancelled a sale in execution under Rule 46(11) after noting invalid conditions of sale and ordered the applicant to pay costs de bonis propriis.
Sheriff of Tembisa Midrand & Kempton Park North v Matsa; In Re: Nedbank Limited v Mathabathe and Others (74872/2009) [2016] ZAGPPHC 678 (8 August 2016)
The court held that the sheriff's return of non-service cannot be translated into a valid service. The rules require proper service, and mere knowledge of the proceedings by the respondent does not satisfy this requirement. The applicant is therefore ordered to effect proper service upon the purchaser respondent in accordance with the prescribed rules.
Source excerpt
Tozamile v RMB Private Bank (A Division for Firstrand Bank Limited) (3964/2010) [2016] ZAGPPHC 109 (24 March 2016)
The High Court rescinded a rule 46(1)(a)(ii) order after finding both parties had laboured under a shared mistake about a postponement.
Nedbank Limited v Blue Sands Trading 537 CC and Others (9840/2014) [2016] ZAKZDHC 4 (15 February 2016)
The court found that the applicant had exhausted all reasonable means to recover the judgment debt, including attempts to attach movables and negotiate payment arrangements. The respondents had breached multiple undertakings to pay and failed to provide a viable plan to settle the debt or avoid execution. The property in question was valued far above the judgment debt, and the respondents owned other immovable properties, ensuring they would not be rendered homeless. The respondents' late notice to defend and allegations of procedural irregularity were dismissed, as default judgment had alrea…
Source excerpt
Sheriff of the High Court Johannesburg South v Kalala; In Re: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Nsele and Others (22740/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 418 (11 May 2015)
The High Court cancelled a sale in execution after the purchaser failed to provide guarantees, but ordered the deposit retained in trust pending assessment of the seller’s loss.
Explore more
