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
Mvuza v Body Corporate of Falcon Crest and Others (26411/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1240 (22 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind default and execution orders, finding the applicant knew of the proceedings and failed to show a bona fide defence.
Eye of Africa Homeowners Association NPC v Mudanalwo and Another (10267/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 557 (12 August 2022)
The court declared vacant land specially executable after a nulla bona return, rejecting the respondent’s levies and encroachment defences.
Nedbank Limited v Nkosi (18884/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 900 (6 December 2017)
The High Court dismissed Nedbank’s unopposed application to declare the respondent’s primary residence specially executable for failure to comply with Rule 46(1) and related case law.
Absa Bank Limited v Wolmarans and Another (1490/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 188 (16 November 2017)
The court found that the defendants had failed to meet their obligations under the mortgage bond, resulting in substantial arrears and an increase in the outstanding capital. The defendants possess alternative properties and have not demonstrated a realistic prospect of settling the arrears in the immediate future. The proportionality of prejudice favours the plaintiff, whose only security is the mortgaged property. The defendants' right to adequate housing is not infringed as they have alternative accommodation. The court considered the anticipated pension payment and granted a short indulge…
Source excerpt
Absa Bank Limited v WH Construction (Pty)Ltd and Others (14730/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 585 (13 May 2016)
The court held that, although the Bank had satisfied the procedural requirements for execution under rule 46(1)(a)(ii), several substantive concerns precluded the granting of the order. The property in question is the primary residence of Mr Marx and his family, and only a 50% share is held by the judgment debtor, with the other half owned by Mrs Marx, who was not joined as a party. The court found that Mrs Marx has a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings and must be joined. Furthermore, the financial feasibility and practical implications of selling only a half share in the prop…
Source excerpt
Firstrand Bank Limited v Moodley (2015/28061) [2016] ZAGPJHC 107 (10 May 2016)
The court granted judgment for the bank’s monetary claim but postponed the request to declare the respondent’s home specially executable.
Absa Bank Ltd v Etsane (33071/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 13 (15 January 2016)
The court found that the defendant had breached both the original loan agreement and the subsequent settlement agreement made an order of court. The settlement agreement did not extinguish the original cause of action, as it expressly preserved the plaintiff's right to seek execution upon breach. The defendant failed to make any payments or provide updated financial information, and his arguments regarding constructive breach and impossibility of compliance were unpersuasive. The right to housing does not prevent execution against a primary residence where substantial debt remains unpaid. The…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Eagle Creek Investments 522 (Pty) Ltd and Others (4837/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 210 (19 May 2015)
The court held that the applicant was entitled to have the respondent's immovable property declared executable under Rule 46(1)(a)(ii) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The agreement made an order of court constitutes a judgment for purposes of execution. The applicant demonstrated, through the sheriff's nulla bona return and lack of evidence to the contrary, that the respondent has no movable assets to satisfy the judgment. The breach of the agreement was substantiated by the certificate of indebtedness and the absence of any challenge to the sale of the properties previously disposed of. The r…
Source excerpt
Absa Bank Limited v Collier (A 314/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 26; 2015 (4) SA 364 (WCC) (12 March 2015)
The High Court held that first-mortgage immovable property may be disposable property under section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act, and dismissed the appeal.
Motani v Bedding Component Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd (27673/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 748 (18 September 2014)
The court refused rescission and condonation, finding no adequate excuse for default and no bona fide defence. It also upheld special executability of the immovable property.
Explore more
