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
Nedbank Limited v Kuni and Others (31087/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 357 (25 May 2022)
The court postponed an unopposed application for specific executability, holding the respondent was entitled to written reasons before the appeal period ran.
Ehlers N.O and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank Of South Africa and Others (2919/2016) [2018] ZALMPPHC 64 (31 August 2018)
The High Court dismissed a challenge to a sale in execution, holding the Bochum sheriff had authority and that any Rule 46 irregularity caused no prejudice.
Bartezky and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (13668/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 9 (16 February 2017)
The High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to Uniform Rule 46(12), holding that sales in execution without a reserve price do not amount to arbitrary deprivation of property.
Sheriff of the High Court, Roodepoort v Magwaza; In re: Standard Bank of South Africa v Sebola and Another (13644/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 721 (15 October 2015)
High Court case on canceling a failed sale in execution, refusing costs and deposit retention relief because Rule 46(11)(b) was not complied with.
Sheriff of the High Court, Rustenburg v Dintoe (51384/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 441 (29 April 2014)
The High Court held that rule 46(11) does not require the sheriff to file a report and application, and allowed the deposit to be held in trust pending further events.
Van Der Merwe N.O. v Du Plessis, In Re; Nedbank Limited v Jacobs (12149/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 214 (22 April 2014)
The court held that, in terms of rule 46(11) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to file a report and that an application which results in unnecessary costs is not necessary. The court relied on the precedent set in Sheriff, Hlabisa and Nongoma v Shobeka, confirming that the process should be streamlined to avoid unnecessary expenditure. Accordingly, the court granted the relief sought in prayers 1 and 3 of the notice of motion, postponed prayer 2 sine die, and dismissed prayer 4.
Source excerpt
Shoprite Checkers Ltd t/a Megasave v Khan and another (ECJ 2004/007) [2004] ZAECHC 19 (8 July 2004)
Full bench appeal on execution sale conditions. The court held clause 20, requiring bondholder consent after auction, conflicted with Rule 46 and was invalid.
Explore more
