About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 249
|
|
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Syce and Others (21044/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 249 (12 April 2021)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO. 21044/2017
In
the
matter
between:-
THE
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD
APPLICANT
REG
NO. 1962/000738/06
and
TREVOR
SYCE
1
ST
RESPONDENT
[…]
ULINE
CATHERIN WINGSON
2
ND
RESPONDENT
[…]
(in
his capacity as duly appointed executor in the
CITY
OF
TSHWANE METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
3
RD
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
VORSTER,
LI
AJ:-
1.
This
is an
application
in terms
of
Rule 46A
for
an
order
declaring
the
property of
the
Respondents
executable
and
the
authorization of
a
writ
of
execution.
The
First
and
Second
Respondents
oppose the application.
2.
Initially the
application
was
launched
before the
amendment
of
Rule
46.
As
a result
of
the
amendment
of
Rule
46
subsequent
to
the
issuing
and
service
of
the application. This
nec
e
ssitated
an
application
for
amendment of
the
application
to
provide
for the additional
requirements
of
Rule
46
relating
to
inter
alia
the
fixing of
a reserve price
.
The amendment
of
Rule
46
was
something
beyond the
control
of
the
Applicant and
consequently
the
application
for
amendment
/
of the
initial
notice
of
motion to
include
reference to
the
seeking
of
the
r
e
serve
price
and
to
authorise
the
filing
of a
supplementary
affidavit
addressing
the
relevant facts
in respect
of the
setting of a reserve price is allowed
.
3.
The
Respondents
oppose
t
he
application. The
opposition
to
the
prayers
in
the
application
is confined
o
disputing
the
indebtedness
of
the
Respondents which led
to
the
Applicant
(Plaintiff) issuing a
summons, obtaining default judgement and
for
payment
of
the
amount
owing
by
the
Respondent. Consequently
there
is
no v
a
lid
defence
relevant
to the question
of
authorising a writ of execution and the setting of a reserve price
,
if any
.
4.
It
appears
that
the
Respondents
are
in
arrears
with
their
instalments
in
the
amount of
R37
152,51 as at
1
July 2016.
At
present they
are
in
arrears
in
the
amount
of R96 295,35.
The
property has
been
valued by
a
valuator
and
valued
at
R900
000,00
and
a
forced
sale
value
of
R650
000,00.
However,
there
is
an
outstanding
municipal
account
of
R617 585,42
in
respect
of
the
property
which
a
prospective
purchaser will of necessity
take into
account
when
a
purchase
price
is fixed.
The
Applicant
contends
for
a
reserve price of R32 414,58.
That
reserv
e
price
is
derived
at
deducting
the
outstanding
rates
and
taxes
from
the
forced
sale
value
of the
property
.
That
appears
to
me to
be
reasonable
and
practical.
In
the
result
of
the
aforegoing, I
make
the
following
order:-
a)
An
order
declaring
specially
executable
the
property
known
as
Erf
1023
,
Ma
l
vern
Township, Registration
Division
IR,
Province
of
Gauteng measuring
495 square
meters, held
by Deed
of
Transfer
No
.
T052899/2004
;
b)
An
order
authorising
the
Registrar to
issue a wr
i
t
of execution
in respect
of
the
aforementioned pro
p
erty;
c)
That the aforesaid
prop
e
rty
be sold with
a
reserve
price of
R32 414
,
58
;
(d)
An
order
in terms
of
Rule 46A(1)
if
the
reserve
price is not achieved
in the first sale, the property may
th
e
sold to highest bidder in subsequent
sal
e
.
(e)
Costs
of
suit on the
scale
of
attorney
and
client.
L
I VORSTER, AJ
12
April 2021
Counsel:
Applicant
M
Riley