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
Letsu v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (18367/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 293 (14 July 2025)
Costs judgment in a Rule 46A matter over sale-in-execution and bond cancellation figures. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs in the application.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Maree N.O and Others (6038/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 172 (24 May 2024)
The High Court enforced a settlement agreement against the Maree trust and Goldensands, rejected duress and prematurity defences, and dismissed the counter-application.
Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd N.O v Ralutanda (20449/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1878 (10 November 2023)
The High Court postponed a Rule 46A default judgment application, finding the matter could not be decided on an uncommissioned answering statement.
Nqaba Guarantee Spv (PTY) LTD and Another v Khayelihle Trust and Another (47603/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 750 (29 June 2023)
The court found that the trust is liable for the outstanding loan amount and interest, as all suspensive conditions of the loan agreement were met and the trust failed to settle the arrears. The debt restructuring order obtained by Mr Ngutshane in his personal capacity did not affect the trust's liability, as it was not sought in respect of the trust. The court held that Rule 46A applies to residential property owned by a trust where beneficiaries reside, requiring a fact-specific enquiry. The trust failed to provide sufficient evidence of its ability to settle the debt or any relevant person…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v Nojozi (21/23415) [2023] ZAGPJHC 52 (26 January 2023)
The High Court ordered the plaintiff to pay wasted costs for one enrolment, but otherwise awarded the plaintiff attorney-and-client costs of the action and default judgment application.
ERF 23 Magaliesig CC v Firstrand Bank Limited and Another (39085/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 615 (23 August 2022)
The High Court granted leave to appeal against refusal of declaratory relief over a sale in execution, finding another court might differ on Rule 46A.
Segalo v Botha N.O. and Others; Botha N.O. and Another v Segalo and Others (2020/11582; 2019/44572) [2021] ZAGPJHC 770 (6 December 2021)
The court held that section 386 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 is not unconstitutional and invalid for failing to provide judicial oversight over the sale of residential immovable property owned by liquidated companies. The constitutional protections under sections 26 and 34 do not extend to juristic persons, and the sale of company-owned property does not implicate the right to housing or access to courts for natural persons residing in such property. The court distinguished the present facts from cases such as Lesapo, Zondi, and Jaftha, which dealt with self-help and deprivation of housing…
Source excerpt
Kgoadi v First Rand Bank Limited and Others (2020/15557) [2021] ZAGPJHC 471 (27 September 2021)
The court found that the applicant's arguments lacked merit. The writ of execution remained valid until the judgment was satisfied, regardless of the cancellation of previous sales in execution. The applicant's payment of arrears did not extinguish the bank's right to execute, as the full judgment amount, including legal costs, remained unpaid. Rule 46A did not apply retrospectively to proceedings commenced before its operation, and there was no legal requirement for repeated judicial oversight or for the bank to obtain a new writ for each default. The alleged misdescription of the property i…
Source excerpt
Land Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Du Plessis NO and Others (5559/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 136 (10 August 2020)
The applicant, as cessionary of the debts from Suidwes Landbou (Pty) Ltd, established locus standi to enforce the loan and credit agreements against the respondents, who are trustees and sureties for the AVR Trust and Anrie Boerdery Trust. The respondents' denials were vague, unsubstantiated, and failed to create genuine disputes of fact. The promissory notes issued by the eleventh respondent confirmed liability for the capital amounts claimed. The application for postponement was dismissed as a tactical manoeuvre lacking bona fide grounds, and the Rule 7 and Rule 30 notices were found to be…
Source excerpt
Investec Bank Limited v W.S.N (30110/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 333 (7 July 2020)
The respondent's liability for the outstanding balances on both the home loan and credit card accounts was conceded and supported by updated certificates of balance. The respondent failed to demonstrate any feasible alternative means to satisfy the judgment debt, as her payments only covered current instalments and did not address substantial arrears. The court found no disproportionality in ordering execution against the primary residence, given the lack of other satisfactory means and the respondent's voluntary use of the property as security. The court exercised its discretion to declare t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
