South Africa Case Law

Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Another v Maidstone Planters Proactive Landowners Association and Others (LCC173/2011C)

Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Another v Maidstone Planters Proactive Landowners Association and Others (LCC173/2011C) [2023] ZALCC 39 (6 November 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC173/2011C

Judge

SJ Cowen

The Land Claims Court dismissed an urgent interdict to stop execution against departmental goods, holding the applicants failed to object to taxation and had no prima facie right.

• Interim Interdict
• Review Of Taxation
• Costs Award
• Warrants Of Execution
• Condonation For Delay
• Interim-interdict

X.E.G v G.E.R (2014/11362)

X.E.G v G.E.R (2014/11362) [2023] ZAGPJHC 893 (10 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/11362

Judge

S Yacoob

The High Court dismissed an application to vary a maintenance order and to set aside warrants of execution, finding inadequate financial disclosure and no basis for bad faith.

• Variation Of Maintenance Order
• Warrants Of Execution
• Maintenance Court Jurisdiction
• Burden Of Proof Financial Disclosure
• Maintenance-order-variation
• Warrants-of-execution

Sheriff for the District of Roodepoort South v Damons and Others (A3059/2019)

Sheriff for the District of Roodepoort South v Damons and Others (A3059/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 747 (30 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3059/2019

Judges

S Yacoob, T Modise

Appeal against a punitive costs order dismissed after the court found the sheriff acted mala fide by selling goods contrary to a rule nisi.

• Punitive Costs Order
• Contempt Of Court
• Warrants Of Execution
• Magistrates Courts Act
• Stay Of Execution
• Punitive-costs-order

G v Discovery Preservation Pension Fund Administered by: Discovery Life Investments Services Ltd (28609/2020)

G v Discovery Preservation Pension Fund Administered by: Discovery Life Investments Services Ltd (28609/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 737; 2022 (3) SA 236 (GJ) (25 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28609/2020

Judge

N Manoim

The High Court held that a Rule 43 maintenance order may be enforced against pension benefits by a High Court warrant of execution.

• Maintenance Orders
• Attachment Of Pension Benefits
• Rule 43 Applications
• Warrants Of Execution
• Statutory Interpretation
• Maintenance-orders

Nkola v Argent Steel Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Phoenix Steel (CA69/2015)

Nkola v Argent Steel Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Phoenix Steel (CA69/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 115 (20 October 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA69/2015

Judges

M L Beard, N G Beshe, M J Lowe

Appeal dismissed after condonation was granted; the court held the appellant had agreed to summary execution and could not insist on prior execution against movables.

• Condonation
• Warrants Of Execution
• Rule 46 Uniform Rules
• Settlement Agreement
• Costs In The Appeal
• Execution-procedure

Futshane v King Sabata Dalidyebo Municipality and Others (1529/2013)

Futshane v King Sabata Dalidyebo Municipality and Others (1529/2013) [2014] ZAECMHC 38 (14 November 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1529/2013

Judge

R W N Brooks

The court rejected a lis alibi pendens defence, held the execution process unlawful for lack of an executability order, and granted the applicant's relief and costs.

• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Warrants Of Execution
• Sale In Execution
• Judicial Discretion
• Immovable Property Execution
• Lis-alibi-pendens

Sheriff for the Magistrate Court Kuilsriver and Another v Registrar of Deeds Cape Town and Another (9815/2011)

Sheriff for the Magistrate Court Kuilsriver and Another v Registrar of Deeds Cape Town and Another (9815/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 109 (24 June 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9815/2011

Judge

Bozalek

The court held that section 66(4) of the Magistrates' Courts Act only causes an attachment to lapse after one year if the property is subject to a claim preferent to that of the judgment creditor. In this case, ABSA Bank was the only preferent creditor, and thus the attachment did not lapse. The Registrar of Deeds' refusal to pass transfer based on the lapse of the attachment was incorrect. The requirements of judicial oversight set out in Japhta and Gundwana were satisfied, as the magistrate had declared the property executable. There was no basis for joining the Minister of Justice, nor for…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Courts Act Section 66
• Warrants Of Execution
• Preferent Creditors
• Transfer Of Immovable Property
• Judicial Oversight