2
[2] The first respondent has served a notice of motion, with a founding affi davit,
wherein the respondent seeks an order setting aside the notice of application in
terms of Uniform R ule 46A(9)(d) . The applicant oppose s the first respondent’s
counter application.
Backg round facts
[3] On the 25 September 2014, the applicant caused summons to be issued against
the first respondent, for payment of an outstanding balance due to the
respondent, interest, and an or der declaring that applicant’s immovable property
executable, as well as costs .
[4] The applicant’s cause of action against the first respondent was based on the
first respondent’s breach of the terms of a written home loan agreement secured
by a mortgage bond registered over the first respondent’s immovable property.
[5] As a result of the first respondent’s failure to keep the minimum monthly
insta lments due to the applicant up to date, the applicant instituted legal action
against the first respondent .
[6] The applicant proceeded with an application for default jud gment read with the
provisions of Uniform Rule 46(1) and Rule 46A(8), which was heard on the 18
February 2020, whereby this Honourable Court granted the judgment in favour
of the applicant.
First Respondent’s counter -claim
[7] The first respondent in this application now attempts to dispute the indebtedness
to the applicant, by c laiming some sort of dispute with the applicant, which also
happens to be her former employer.
[8] The nature of the first respondent’s alleged dispute with her former employer is
unclear, no expla nation and details are provided on how the alleged dispute links
with this application and the applicant’s initial claim.
[9] The applicant has no knowledge of the first respondent’s employment status and
the purported dispute.
3
[10] The first respondent’s alleged dispute with her former employer bears no
relevance to this application and the applicant’s initial application.
[11] There is no appl ication for the rescission of judgment pending, and no appeal
was noted against the default judgment.
[12] The defau lt judgment granted against the first respondent is therefore
enforceable, and the applicant is entitled to execute thereon, and to recover the
amounts lawfully owed to it by the first respondent.
[13] As far as this application is concerned, the first respondent has not placed any
facts before this court regarding the re consideration and reduction of the reserve
price.
Reconsider ation of the reserve price
[14] This honourable court determined a minimum reserve price of R300 000 .00 in
respect of the sale of execution of the first respondent’s immovable property.
[15] The sale of execution of the first respondent’s immo vable property proceeded on
the 10 December 2020, but the sale did not achieve the minimum reserve price
set by this Honourable Court.
[16] A second sale in execution was scheduled, which did not achieve any bids, The
sheriff rendered a no bid sale return.
[17] Although the property was valued at R670 000.00 with a forced sale value of
R530 000.00 and an an outstanding account to the local municipality of R52
443.21, it is averred by the applicant that there is is no interest in the prop erty by
purchasers.
[18] The outstanding balance due as of 7 December 2024 is R 481 392.22, and the
arrear amount is R305 323.25 .
[19] The applicant avers that it is unable to enforce the judgment debt and have no
other option but to approach this court to reconsider the reserve price.
5
matter was heard in open court on 12 February 2025. The date for hand down is
deemed 23 April 2025.
Date of hearing: 12 February 2025
Date of judgement: 23 April 2025
APPEARANCE S:
For the Applicant: ADV. AP Ellis instructed by PDR Attorneys
For the Respondent: No appearance
6