South Africa Case Law

Body Corporate Silver Stream v Mathibela (97703/2015)

Body Corporate Silver Stream v Mathibela (97703/2015) [2025] ZAGPPHC 101 (31 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

97703/2015

Judge

L.A. Retief

The respondent failed to pay levies, resulting in a valid default judgment. No opposing affidavit was properly filed, and condonation for late filing was refused due to an unexplained and unreasonable delay. The property is not the respondent's primary residence; she resides elsewhere. The Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act imposes a statutory obligation to pay levies, which remains undisturbed. The requirements of Uniform Rule 46A were satisfied, including service on all affected parties and consideration of the rights of the occupant, Ms Pearl Mathibela. However, her right to adequate…

Source excerpt

• Specific Executability
• Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 46a
• Condonation
• Reserve Price Setting

Sequeira v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (45914/2021)

Sequeira v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (45914/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1272 (27 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

45914/2021

Judge

Carrim

The court granted a spouse leave to intervene in a bank’s enforcement proceedings, finding she had a direct financial interest arising from marriage in community of property.

• Intervention Under Rule 12
• Joint Estate Liability
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• National Credit Act Notices
• Specific Executability
• Intervention

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Gwasai and Another (7916/2021)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Gwasai and Another (7916/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 61 (27 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7916/2021

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The High Court granted Standard Bank judgment, declared the Kyalami property specially executable, and dismissed the second respondent’s counterclaims and interdict.

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Specific Executability
• Counterclaim For Damages
• Final Interdict
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Sale Of Immovable Property

Fedbond Nominees (Pty) Ltd v Import Export 2020 (Pty) Ltd and Another (7042/2020)

Fedbond Nominees (Pty) Ltd v Import Export 2020 (Pty) Ltd and Another (7042/2020) [2022] ZALMPPHC 67 (2 December 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7042/2020

Judge

TC Lithole

High Court granted judgment on loan and mortgage bond debt, accepted corrected certificates of indebtedness, and declared the bonded properties specially executable.

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Certificate Of Indebtedness
• Specific Executability
• Loan Agreement
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Interest Rate Dispute

Firstrand Bank v Maseng and Others (23082/22)

Firstrand Bank v Maseng and Others (23082/22) [2022] ZAGPPHC 908 (18 November 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23082/22

Judge

Reinard Michau

The court found that the applicant complied with section 129(1) of the National Credit Act by providing written confirmation of delivery of the notice to the relevant post office. The respondents failed to rebut the presumption of delivery with admissible evidence, as their supporting documents were hearsay and unsupported by affidavits. The court held that any non-compliance with section 129, if cured before the hearing, does not require adjournment for its own sake. The relief sought by the applicant was granted, including judgment for the outstanding amount, interest, and an order declarin…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Section 129 Notice
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Specific Executability
• Reserve Price Determination

Nedbank Limited v Kuni and Others (31087/2019)

Nedbank Limited v Kuni and Others (31087/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 357 (25 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31087/2019

Judge

Maubane

The court postponed an unopposed application for specific executability, holding the respondent was entitled to written reasons before the appeal period ran.

• Specific Executability
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 46
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Award
• Rule-49
• Rule-46

Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd v Thlako and Others (36598/2016)

Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd v Thlako and Others (36598/2016) [2021] ZAGPJHC 485 (12 January 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36598/2016

Judge

C I Moosa

The High Court declared a respondent’s undivided half share in a Johannesburg property specifically executable and issued a writ of execution.

• Specific Executability
• Writ Of Execution
• Primary Residence
• Practice Manual Compliance
• Costs Award
• Specific-executability

Mahomed v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (69492/2017)

Mahomed v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (69492/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 241 (26 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69492/2017

Judge

G Jacobs

The applicant failed to establish a bona fide defence to the default judgment, particularly regarding the allegation of reckless credit. The court found that Standard Bank conducted proper affordability assessments at the time of granting the loan, and the applicant's non-disclosure of his imminent retirement was material. The applicant serviced the loan for eight years, and the evidence did not support a finding of reckless credit. The court further held that the applicant did not provide sufficient grounds to prevent the property from being declared executable, nor did he propose any viable…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Reckless Credit
• Specific Executability
• Reserve Price
• Costs Order

Absa Bank Limited v Hamid and Others (2009/38858)

Absa Bank Limited v Hamid and Others (2009/38858) [2018] ZAGPJHC 684 (26 November 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/38858

Judge

Klaaren

The court found that the respondent's consistent and credible evidence established that the Lenasia property is his primary residence. The applicant's investigative evidence and returns of service were not sufficient to displace the respondent's sworn testimony. In terms of the Folscher judgment, usual occupation is determinative of primary residence, and the applicant failed to provide adequate information regarding the respondent's personal circumstances as required by Rule 46(1)(a)(ii). Consequently, the application for execution against the Lenasia property was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Rule 46 Primary Residence
• Specific Executability
• Foreclosure
• Returns Of Service

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Oosterlaak and Another (21875/2014)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Oosterlaak and Another (21875/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 571 (28 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21875/2014

Judge

AC Basson

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with the settlement agreement by not eradicating the arrears within the extended period, despite leniency. The applicant was therefore entitled to proceed with default judgment and to seek execution against the property. The court held that the applicant was not required to issue a fresh section 129 notice under the National Credit Act, as reinstatement would only occur if all arrears were paid, which did not happen. The discretion to declare the property specially executable was exercised in favour of the applicant, as the respondents did…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Default Judgment
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Specific Executability
• Certificate Of Balance
• Mortgage Enforcement