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

Zouzoua v Investec Bank Limited (2021/444429)

Zouzoua v Investec Bank Limited (2021/444429) [2024] ZAGPJHC 994 (4 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/44429

Judge

MMP Mdalana-Mayisela

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an order involving Rule 35(12), loan agreement fees, recklessness, and Rule 46A enforcement.

• Leave To Appeal
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 35
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 46a
• National Credit Act
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Leave-to-appeal

Petrus Johannes Bestbier and Others v Nedbank Limited (150/2021)

Petrus Johannes Bestbier and Others v Nedbank Limited (150/2021) [2022] ZASCA 88; 2023 (4) SA 25 (SCA) (13 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

150/2021

Judges

Saldulker, Molemela, Dlodlo, Weiner, Molefe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that rule 46A of the Uniform Rules of Court is applicable even when the property sought to be declared executable is owned by a trust and occupied as a primary residence by trust beneficiaries. The Court found that the purpose of rule 46A is to ensure judicial oversight and protect the right to adequate housing under section 26 of the Constitution, regardless of the legal nature of the property owner. However, the appellants failed to demonstrate that they or the beneficiaries fell within the category of vulnerable persons at risk of homelessness as envisaged…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 46a
• Judicial Oversight
• Right To Adequate Housing
• Trust Property Execution
• Consent Judgment

Baloyi N.O. and Others v Pawn Stars CC and Another (CCT 15/21)

Baloyi N.O. and Others v Pawn Stars CC and Another (CCT 15/21) [2022] ZACC 10; 2022 (12) BCLR 1431 (CC) (15 March 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 15/21

Judges

Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the alleged constitutional issue regarding the applicability of rule 46A to property owned by juristic persons or trusts was immaterial to the decision of the lower court. The High Court had accepted the applicability of rule 46A but dismissed the application on other grounds. The applicants failed to demonstrate any basis for variation or rescission of the consent order under rule 42 or the common law, and did not allege any factors that would have prevented the granting of the consent order had rule 46A been applied…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 46a
• Consent Orders
• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Variation And Rescission Of Orders