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
Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd N.O v Srivastava and Others (D1067/2025) [2025] ZAKZDHC 49 (6 August 2025)
The High Court set aside a reserve price for a property sale in execution and ordered a third sale without reserve after two failed auctions.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Zwane and Another (68313/2014) [2025] ZAGPPHC 358 (23 April 2025)
The High Court reduced the reserve price for sale in execution from R300,000 to R150,000 after two unsuccessful auctions and no bidder interest.
Manqele and Another v SB Guarentee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/050021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 381 (24 March 2025)
The court found that the sheriff's return of service, while prima facie evidence, was not conclusive in this case. Mr Manqele provided credible and corroborated evidence that he was not present at the property on the alleged service date, thus discharging the onus on a balance of probabilities. The sheriff's affidavit lacked sufficient verification of identity, and the supporting evidence did not establish personal service. As a result, the default judgment and writ of execution were erroneously granted and must be rescinded. Furthermore, since the money judgment against Ms Magakoa was inextr…
Source excerpt
J & R Hartman Boerdery CC and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (HCAA 31/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 13 (22 January 2025)
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that their constitutional rights under Section 26(3) were implicated. The court found that the procedural requirements of Uniform Rule 46A were adequately considered by the court a quo, and the appellants did not demonstrate that they fell within the vulnerable category protected by the rule. The respondent's locus standi was established, and the outstanding balances were substantiated by certificates of balance. The appellants' denials were deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient to raise a bona fide disput…
Source excerpt
Munsami v Standard Bank of SA and Others (122/2023) [2024] ZASCA 167 (5 December 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant was not entitled to challenge the summary judgment order in another court of equal standing without appealing against it or seeking rescission. The procedures followed by the bank, including the particulars of claim, constituted substantial compliance with Uniform Rule 46A, and the absence of a reserve price did not render the order void. The applicant failed to establish any collusion or bad faith on the part of the purchaser, who acquired the property at a bona fide public auction and did not have knowledge of any defect in the sale. The a…
Source excerpt
SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Hlongwane (17048/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1275; 2025 (3) SA 640 (GP) (4 December 2024)
The Full Court held that reconsideration applications under Uniform Rule 46A(9) must be heard in open court, not chambers, unless special circumstances exist. The process is initiated by the Sheriff filing a report within five days of a failed auction, which must be served on both the execution creditor and judgment debtor. The execution creditor must then file a supplementary affidavit with detailed information, and personal service on the judgment debtor is required. The court retains wide powers to revisit the entire order, including the declaration of executability, and may sanction priva…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate of Monterey v Zakwe (AR483/2023) [2024] ZAKZPHC 117 (29 November 2024)
The court held that Rule 43A of the Magistrates' Court Rules requires personal service on the judgment debtor in every application to declare residential immovable property executable, regardless of whether the property is the primary residence. The status of the property as a primary residence is a factual issue that must be ventilated before the court, and the judgment debtor is entitled to be heard on this issue. The absence of the debtor from the property does not dispense with the requirement of personal service unless substituted service is authorized by the court. The decision in Bushm…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa v Van Nelson and Another (Reasons) (18696/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 353; 2025 (3) SA 658 (WCC) (4 November 2024)
The court found that the respondents' arrears were negligible, amounting to only 2.8 months, with no history of significant default. The bank failed to demonstrate that all reasonable avenues to satisfy the arrears had been exhausted before seeking execution against the primary residence. The application contained discrepancies regarding service, knowledge of dependents, and payment arrangements. The respondents had made a payment towards the arrears, indicating a potential to cure the default. Granting execution under these circumstances would be disproportionate and iniquitous, especially g…
Source excerpt
Naidoo (formerly Padayachee) v Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO and Others (1885/2009) [2024] ZAKZDHC 55 (23 August 2024)
The court found that the applicant's payment of arrears and subsequent conduct of both parties resulted in the reinstatement of the credit agreement, extinguishing the cause of action for the original summons and default judgment. The first respondent's reliance on the 2013 default judgment for execution in 2021 was improper, as the debt had been discharged and the agreement reinstated. The sale in execution and transfer to the second respondent were declared invalid, and the title deed was ordered to be reinstated in the applicant's name. The second respondent, as an innocent purchaser, was…
Source excerpt
Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Steenkamp N.O and Others (1204/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 53 (31 May 2024)
The court held that Uniform Rule 46A applies to execution against immovable property owned by a trust if the property is used as a primary residence by natural persons, such as trust beneficiaries or employees. The decisive factor is the use of the property for residential purposes, not the legal persona of the owner. The applicant failed to comply with Rule 46A, and the application to declare the properties executable cannot proceed without judicial oversight. The respondents' force majeure defence was not seriously pursued and did not bar the money claim. However, both the monetary claim an…
Source excerpt
Explore more
