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
Felix and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (49134/2013) [2024] ZAGPPHC 432 (15 May 2024)
Urgent application to stop a sale in execution dismissed; the court held the applicants showed no basis for interdict relief and awarded attorney-client costs.
Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O v Tyler and Another (2757/2020) [2024] ZAECQBHC 6 (30 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed a default judgment application because the Rule 46A procedure for execution against immovable property was not properly served.
Munsami v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (2018/47106) [2023] ZAGPJHC 30 (20 January 2023)
The High Court refused leave to appeal in a challenge to a sale in execution and transfer of the applicant’s home, finding no reasonable prospect of success.
Munsami v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (2018/47106) [2022] ZAGPJHC 854 (10 October 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any exceptional circumstances that would justify setting aside the sale in execution and transfer of the property. There was no evidence that the purchaser acted in bad faith or had knowledge of any alleged defect. The court held that the requirements of Rule 46A were substantially complied with during the summary judgment proceedings, and there was no necessity for a separate Rule 46A application. The applicant was legally represented and had the opportunity to oppose the summary judgment and the Rule 46A orders but did not do so. The ap…
Source excerpt
Van Wyk and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (3974/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 103 (31 May 2022)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish any material defect in the notice of sale sufficient to invalidate the sale in execution. No notice of sale was placed before the court, and the description in the conditions of sale was more than adequate under Rule 46(7)(b). The applicants' argument for a detailed, estate-agent style description was rejected as excessive and not required by law. The applicants did not provide proof of payment before the auction, and no binding agreement to cancel the sale was established. The respondents' version was accepted in accordance with the Pla…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v Pettitt and Another (24418/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 74 (4 June 2021)
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to comply substantively with the requirements of Uniform Rule 46A and Chapter 10.17 of the Practice Manual, as neither a separate Rule 46A application nor a Chapter 10.17 affidavit was filed. The information before the court was outdated and incomplete, and the supplementary practice note and emailed documents did not constitute proper evidence. The absence of an appearance or confirmation from the defendants regarding the alleged settlement agreement meant the court could not be satisfied that the defendants had agreed to the execution order or r…
Source excerpt
Phaweni and Another v Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O and Others (24441/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 612 (20 October 2020)
The High Court dismissed an urgent application to suspend a sale in execution, holding the pleaded Rule 46A and procedural challenges were unsupported and defective.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Crouse and Another (21428/2016) [2020] ZAGPJHC 322 (7 September 2020)
The High Court postponed a bank’s foreclosure trial sine die after late Rule 46A amendments and a change of defence attorneys left the defendants unprepared.
Absa Bank Limited v Sawyer (2018/17056) [2018] ZAGPJHC 662 (14 December 2018)
Summary judgment was granted for Absa on mortgage debt, and the defendant’s primary residence was declared specially executable with a reserve price set.
First Rand Bank Limited v Barnwell and Another (2017/6235) [2018] ZAGPJHC 102 (26 March 2018)
The court found that the application is opposed, as the second respondent has filed opposing papers and a counterclaim. The issues raised, including the right to housing and compliance with Rule 46A, require proper consideration and cannot be summarily dismissed. The applicant's argument that the monetary order should be granted without regard to the respondent's opposition is inconsistent with the facts. Given the developments in the parties' circumstances, including the divorce and appointment of a receiver and liquidator, the matter must be postponed to allow the second respondent to seek…
Source excerpt
Explore more
