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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1048
|
|
ABSA Bank Limited v Fourie and Another (64550/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1048 (4 October 2024)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO.: 64550/2020
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
Date:
4 October 2024
E
van der Schyff
In
the matter between:
ABSA
BANK LIMITED
Applicant
And
GODFREY
GRAYNOLD FOURIE
First Respondent
PRISCILLA
MAY FOURIE
Second respondent
JUDGMENT
Van
der Schyff J
[1]
On 24 June 2021, the applicant obtained default judgment and an order
declaring the respondents'
property to be specially executable. A
reserve price was set at R650 000.00. The property was put up for
sale in execution on 3
August 2022, but no bids were received. On 17
February 2022, the reserve price was amended to R500 000. On 17 May
2023, the property
was put up for auction again. Again, no bids were
received.
[2]
The applicant now approaches this court seeking an order varying the
reserve price to R350 000.00.
The applicant provided evidence to the
effect that on 25 March 2024, the arrears were R1 303 504.79. The
outstanding rates and
taxes amount to R87 858.97.
[3]
The Sheriff's report reflects that the auction was advertised and
that 42 bidders registered.
However, none of the registered bidders
participated in bidding on the property.
[4]
The first respondent, Mr. Fourie, appeared in person. He indicated
that he applied for
pro bono
legal assistance but received no
reply. He stated that he needs legal assistance because he does not
want the reserve price to
be less than R650 000.
[5]
I requested the applicant to provide an updated valuation report.
This report was only provided
on 23 September 2024. The property's
market value was determined to be R900 000.00. In determining the
reserve price, the practice
developed to have regard to the forced
sale value, less any outstanding rates, and taxes. Where, however, it
is evident that the
property is not sought after, the court has to
consider that the immovable property is security for a debt due and
owing to the
plaintiff who succeeded in obtaining a judgment debt.
The court must enedeavour to strike a balance between the interests
of the
execution creditor and the judgment debtor.
[6]
In casu
, the reserve price was already reduced once. If the
market value of the property is considered, as well as the fact that
there
were, to date, no interested bidders, I am of the view that it
is fair to both parties to vary the reserve price to the amount of
R400 000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Rand) in an effort to facilitate
the sale of the property.
[7]
The respondent is liable for the costs of the application as provided
for in terms of the initial
agreement concluded between the parties.
ORDER
In
the result, the following order is granted:
1.
The order of this court, granted on 24
June 2021, varied by an order granted on 17 February 2022, is further
varied so as to amend
the prayer setting out the reserve price to
read as follows:
'The property is to be
sold in execution with a reserve price of R400 000.00 (Four Hundred
Thousand Rand)'.
2. The respondent is
to pay the costs of the application on attorney and client scale.
E
van der Schyff
Judge
of the High Court
Delivered:
This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on Caselines. It will
be emailed to
the parties/their legal representatives as a courtesy gesture.
For the applicant:
Adv. J. Minnaar
Instructed by:
Hammond Pole
Attorneys
For the respondent:
In Person
Date of the
hearing:
7 August 2024
Updated valuation
report uploaded:
23 September 2024
Date of judgment:
4 October 2024