Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 (19 March 2025)

Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Execution — Sale in execution — Notice of sale in execution — Requirement for notice to be served on judgment debtor — Judgment creditor failed to serve notice prior to sale — Sale declared invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements — Importance of adherence to notice provisions in ensuring fairness in execution processes.

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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 304
|

|

Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 (19 March 2025)

REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
no: 2023/127918
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
In
the matter between:
CAPITEC
BANK
LIMITED
Applicant
and
UBUNTU
FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE GRAYSTON
(PTY)
LTD
Respondent
This
judgment was delivered by uploading it to the court online digital
database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South
Africa,
Johannesburg, and by email to the attorneys of record of the parties
on 19 March 2025.
JUDGMENT
VAN
DER WALT AJ
[1]
This is a judgment in an application for leave to appeal. The
applicant is Capitec Bank Limited. The respondent is Ubuntu Family

Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Limited, now in liquidation, who abides
the decision of this court.
[2]
In
the judgment which is the subject of this application for leave to
appeal, I interpreted subsection 133(1) of the Companies Act.
[1]
In doing so, I found that the interpretations of most pertinently the
phrases “legal proceeding” (if had been interpreted
not
to include the rei vindicatio) and “lawfully in its possession”
in previous judgments of this court and that of
other divisions are,
with respect, incorrect.
[3]
The decision appealed against therefore involves a question of
law of importance in respect of which a decision of the Supreme Court

of Appeal is required to resolve the differences of opinion.
[4]
In
the
event, I make
the
following order:
1.  Leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
2.  Costs are to be
costs in the appeal.
Nico
van der Walt
Acting
Judge, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
Heard:
19 March
2025
Judgment:
19 March 2025
Appearances:
For
the applicant
Mr
W.G. Pretorius
Instructed
by Brooks & Braatvedt Inc.
For
the respondent
Mr
S. Janse Van Rensburg SC
Instructed
by liquidators Messrs Seima and Sibanda
[1]
Act
71 of 2008.