About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 538
|
|
Steenkamp v Greyling,The Sheriff of The High Court Germiston South and Another (2023/02209) [2023] ZAGPJHC 538 (21 May 2023)
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 2023/02209
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
21.05.23
In the matter between:
STEENKAMP,
LEON
APPLICANT
and
GREYLING,
ANTHON CAREL –
THE
SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT, GERMISTON SOUTH
1
ST
RESPONDENT
CHANGING
TIDES PTY LTD N.O
2
ND
RESPONDENT
Neutral Citation
:
Steenkamp Leon v Greyling, Anton Carel – The Sheriff Of The
High Court Germiston South & Another
(Case No: 02209/2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 538 (21 May 2023)
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT
J
1.
This application is heard over Teams at 9pm on Sunday night, 21 May
2023.
2.
In 2014, judgment was granted against the applicant. The order
included an order for the executability of the applicant’s
house. The applicant knew of the judgment soon thereafter. He admits
that numerous applications for rescission or attempts at appeal
or to
stay execution have failed.
3.
He says that there are irregularities in the sale in execution, due
to take place at 10am tomorrow. He says, for example
that there has
been no notice put on the relevant board at the Magistrate’s
Court.
4.
Yesterday, the applicant attempted to move the application without
notice to the judgment creditor. I refused to allow
the matter to
proceed until the judgment creditor and sheriff had been given an
opportunity to oppose. Again today, another attempt
was made by the
applicant to get an order ex parte.
5.
The judgment creditor has filed an answering affidavit in which the
allegation is made that the applicant is a former attorney
who was
struck off the roll. The applicant admits this allegation. The
allegation is made by the judgment creditor’s attorney
that the
applicant has deliberately frustrated the judgment over the years.
6.
The applicant improperly tried to move the application without notice
to the judgment creditor. I take a dim view of this
conduct. It might
be understandable where a litigant has no legal knowledge, but from a
person who was an attorney it is improper.
This is sufficient reason
on its own to strike the matter off the urgent roll.
7.
Be that as it may, the answering affidavit, deposed to by the
judgment creditor’s attorney, gives chapter and verse,
setting
out the long history of attempts by the applicant to obstruct the
judgment. The matter has even reached the SCA. The allegations
of
irregularity by the sheriff or judgment creditor preceding the sale
are denied.
8.
The house in question is not a primary residence of the applicant,
according to the answering affidavit. The applicant
does not suggest
that he will be homeless if the sale proceeds.
9.
The sheriff filed an answering affidavit setting out in detail that
the legal requirements preceding the sale have been
complied with. It
is clear that the applicant knew of the coming sale some time ago and
chose to wait for this weekend to launch
his application.
10.
In my view, the alleged urgency is self -created.
ORDER
1. The application
is struck from the roll.
2. The applicant is
to pay the costs of both respondents on the attorney and client
scale, such costs to include those of
counsel where so employed.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
HEARD
: 21 May 2023
DELIVERED
: 21 May 2023
APPEARANCES
:
APPLICANT
Applicant
in person
Leon
Steenkamp
leon@nlgp.co.za
072 315
4207
2
nd
RESPONDENT
Adv
C Van Der Merwe
082 783
3911
Moodie
& Robertson Attorneys
tim@moodierobertson.co.za
011 807
6046