South Africa Case Law

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Britz and Others (45914/2021)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Britz and Others (45914/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 423 (5 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

45914/2021

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court found that the typographical error regarding the date of loan advancement was immaterial, as the facts and documentation clearly established the existence and terms of the loan agreement. The constitutional challenge to Rule 46A was dismissed as misconceived, since personal information disclosed in court is exempt under the Protection of Personal Information Act, and no order under Rule 46A(8)(b) was sought. The argument that a money judgment must precede an application for special execution was rejected, with the court affirming the binding authority of Mokebe, which allows both to…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Special Execution
• Section 129 Notice
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Jurisdiction
• Costs Order

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Motha and Another (6692/2015)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Motha and Another (6692/2015) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1191 (19 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6692/2015

Judge

Collis

Default judgment was granted on a home loan claim, with the respondents’ primary residence declared specially executable and sold in execution without a reserve price.

• Default Judgment
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Special Executability
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Home Loan Agreement
• Primary Residence Execution

S B Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Manyoni & Gija Investments CC and Another (790/2024)

S B Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Manyoni & Gija Investments CC and Another (790/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 289 (12 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

790/2024

Judge

TL MANYE

The High Court enforced a breached settlement order, granted judgment for the outstanding bond debt, and declared the mortgaged residential property specially executable.

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Sale In Execution
• Settlement Agreement
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Primary Residence Protection
• Judicial Oversight

Firstrand Bank Limited v Zikalala - Rule 46A Application (623/2021)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Zikalala - Rule 46A Application (623/2021) [2023] ZAECELLC 28 (17 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

623/2021

Judge

Hartle

The court declared the respondent’s home specially executable under Rule 46A, but suspended the order until 1 November 2023 to allow her time to regularise payments.

• Special Executability
• Primary Residence Protection
• Mortgage Enforcement
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Special-executability
• Primary-residence-protection

Investec Bank Limited v Litha (2021/11116)

Investec Bank Limited v Litha (2021/11116) [2023] ZAGPJHC 487 (16 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/11116

Judge

R Strydom

High Court judgment granting mortgage enforcement and special execution over a primary residence, with a reserve price and a three-month stay.

• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Right To Adequate Housing
• Judicial Oversight
• Setting Of Reserve Price
• National Credit Act Compliance

Maseloa and Another v Nyandu and Others (3835/2022)

Maseloa and Another v Nyandu and Others (3835/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 82 (22 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3835/2022

Judge

Daniso

The court found that the applicants lacked locus standi to seek rescission of the order confirming the sale in execution, as they were not parties to the original proceedings and did not have a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter. The sale in execution and the court order were granted in accordance with the procedural requirements of rule 46A, and the applicants' offer to purchase, made after the property was sold and attached, was invalid and unenforceable. The judgment debtors, as owners and affected parties, did not raise any prejudice nor were they joined in these…

Source excerpt

• Sale In Execution
• Rule 42 Rescission
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Locus Standi
• Attachment In Execution

ABSA Bank Limited v Shaw and Another (38990/2021)

ABSA Bank Limited v Shaw and Another (38990/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 427 (28 June 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

38990/2021

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the applicant had established a valid claim for execution against the first respondent's immovable property, as the underlying costs orders were final and not subject to appeal or rescission. The first respondent's constitutional right to housing was considered, but the evidence showed he was not indigent and could afford alternative accommodation. The court held that Rule 46A's procedural requirements were satisfied, and judicial oversight was exercised. The reserve price proposed by the applicant was accepted, and the property was declared executable for the amounts spe…

Source excerpt

• Execution Against Immovable Property
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Right To Housing
• Reserve Price Determination

Nedbank Limited v Ramparsad and Another (58806/2018)

Nedbank Limited v Ramparsad and Another (58806/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 746 (4 November 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58806/2018

Judge

R G Tolmay

The High Court refused condonation for a late supplementary affidavit in a Rule 46A matter, finding no satisfactory explanation and holding the filing was an abuse of process.

• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Supplementary Affidavit
• Abuse Of Process
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Condonation
• Supplementary-affidavit

Mukhinindi and Another v Cedar Creek Estate Home Owners Association and Another (81830/2018)

Mukhinindi and Another v Cedar Creek Estate Home Owners Association and Another (81830/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 314 (10 May 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

81830/2018

Judge

H G A Snyman

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default and delay in bringing the application to set aside the rule 46A order. They did not establish a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as they admitted indebtedness for at least the judgment debt and failed to challenge the underlying Magistrates’ Court order. The applicants did not satisfy the requirements for condonation or for an interim interdict, as they did not demonstrate a prima facie right or address the balance of convenience. The estate has been prejudiced by the applicants’ persistent…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Levy Disputes
• Condonation
• Sale In Execution

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Syce and Others (21044/2017)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Syce and Others (21044/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 249 (12 April 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21044/2017

Judge

L I Vorster

The High Court granted a Rule 46A application, declaring the property executable, authorising a writ of execution, and setting a reserve price.

• Rule 46a Procedure
• Reserve Price Setting
• Writ Of Execution
• Mortgage Arrears
• Rule-46a
• Reserve-price