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
Body Corporate Ruby Court v Boyce (55013/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1136 (7 September 2023)
The High Court declared a sectional title unit specially executable for arrear levies, set a reserve price of R500,000, and ordered attorney-client costs.
Body Corporate of Oakmont v Awah (2490/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 362 (20 September 2019)
The High Court held that a sectional-title unit owned by a non-resident debtor was executable under Rule 46, and granted relief to limit water supply.
Sekgala v Sheriff of the High Court and Others (12231/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 255 (25 June 2019)
The court found that the applicant's application to the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal in terms of section 17(2)(f) suspended execution of the judgment. Consequently, Nedbank was not entitled to proceed with execution and the sale in execution of the applicant's property was void. The court held that it was unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised by the applicant, as the sale was invalid due to the suspension of execution during the pending appeal process. The late filing of Nedbank's answering affidavit was condoned, and the applicant's failure to file a replying affidavit…
Source excerpt
Frazenburg and Another v Rendall and Others (2018/11948) [2018] ZAGPJHC 631 (12 November 2018)
The High Court dismissed an application to reverse a sale in execution after transfer had already passed to a bona fide purchaser, with each party bearing its own costs.
Nkwane v Nkwane and Others (36700/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 153 (22 March 2018)
The court held that Rule 46(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it stood prior to amendment, did not constitute an unconstitutional limitation of the rights protected by sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The process of sale in execution was found to be rational, procedurally fair, and subject to judicial oversight, which adequately protected the rights of judgment debtors. The evidence did not support the contention that a mandatory reserve price would yield higher sale prices or prevent arbitrary deprivation. The court found that the absence of a reserve price was not inherently unre…
Source excerpt
S S v V V S (CCT247/16) [2018] ZACC 5; 2018 (6) BCLR 671 (CC) (1 March 2018)
The Constitutional Court dismissed a leave-to-appeal application over maintenance enforcement, holding that ongoing non-compliance with court orders justified punitive costs.
Naidu and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (3201/2016) [2017] ZAKZDHC 48 (22 December 2017)
High Court dismissed an application to set aside a sale in execution, holding that the Rule 46 notice was sufficiently compliant and no invalidating prejudice was shown.
WRP Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Chief Chunda Associates CC (57682/12) [2017] ZAGPPHC 897 (15 December 2017)
The applicant failed to establish that it could not satisfy the judgment debt from the respondent's movable property, as the suspension of the first writ of execution was not uplifted and subsequent writs were not served at the correct address. The applicant did not demonstrate that the respondent was deliberately frustrating execution or evading payment. The court found that the applicant's reliance on Rule 46(1)(a)(i) was misplaced and that its conduct amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the application for execution against immovable property was dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
Sheriff of the High Court, for the District Lydenburg v Prosper Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another In re: Firstrand Bank Ltd v Mashiane (1350/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 722 (15 November 2017)
The court postponed a Rule 46(11) application to cancel a sale in execution, finding insufficient information on compliance with Rule 46 and Form 21.
Nkola v Argent Steel Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Phoenix Steel (CA69/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 115 (20 October 2016)
Appeal dismissed after condonation was granted; the court held the appellant had agreed to summary execution and could not insist on prior execution against movables.
Explore more
