SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2023-0 50021
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
________________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
NKULULEKO MANQELE
(Identity number: 8 […]) FIRST APPLICANT
PALESA VALENTINE MAGAKOA
(Identity number: 9 […]) SECOND APPLICANT
And
SB GUARANTEE COMPANY (RF) (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2006/021576/07) FIRST RESPONDENT
THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT, SANDTON
NORTH SECOND RESPONDENT
in re
Page 2 of 11
SB GUARANTEE COMPANY (RF) (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
(Registration Number: 2006/021576/07)
And
NKULULEKO MANQELE
(Identity number: 8 […]) FIRST RESPONDENT
PALESA VALENTINE MAGAKOA
(Identity number: 9 […]) SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Introduction [1] This is an application for rescission of a court order granted on 11 September
2023 against the first and second applicants, allegedly in their absence (the “ court
order ”). In this judgment I will refer to -
a. the application which resulted in the court order being granted as the “main application” ;
b. the first applicant in these rescission proceedings as Mr Manqele and the
second applicant as Ms Magakoa; and
c. the first respondent in these rescission proceedings as SB Guarantee
Company.
[2] SB Guarantee Company was the applicant in the main proceedings and Mr
Manqele and Ms Magakoa were first and second respondents respectively in the
main proceedings.
[3] In terms of the court order , Mr Manqele,and Ms Magakoa were ordered to pay
SB Guarantee Company an amount of R8 294 955.00 plus interest and costs and
Page 3 of 11
certain residential immovable property at 1[ …] D[…] Ave, B […] (the “property”) , was
declared specially executable.
[4] It is common cause that the property is the primary residence of Mr Manqele
but is not the primary residence of Ms Magakoa. Mr Manqele and Ms Magakoa are
estranged.
[5] Mr Manqele and Ms Magakoa state that neither the main application nor the
court order came to their notice until 26 January 2024.
[6] Mr Manqele and Ms Magakoa apply for rescission on two bases. The first is
on the basis that the court order was erroneously sought and erroneously granted in
their absence. The second is on the basis of the common law , for which the y must
show sufficient cause for the rescission including a reasonable explanation for the default and a bona fide defence.
The sheriff’s return of service
[7] in terms of Rule 46A(3)(d) –
“every notice of application to declare residential immovable property executable
shall be served by the sheriff on the judgement debtor personally… ”.
[8] A copy of the sheriff’s return of service upon which SB Guarantee Company
relies to show personal service of the main application on Mr Manqele is attached as
annexure “M4” to Mr Manqele ’s founding affidavit in these proceedings. The return
was dated 14 August 2023 and in it the sheriff stated –
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED:
That on 14 August 2023 at 10h35 at UNIT 1[ …], 1[…] D[…] A[…], B[…] being
the 1st Defendant's chosen domicilium citandi el execulandi a copy of the NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO DECLARE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY EXECUTABLE was served to, NKULULEKO MANQELE personally after the original document was displayed and the nature and contents thereof explained to him. Rule 4(1)(a)( i).
Page 4 of 11
[9] The Superior Courts Act1 provides -
“the return of service of a deputy sheriff of what has been done upon any
process of a court, shall be prima facie the evidence of the matter therein
stated”
Mr Manqele
[10] Mr Manqele, in his founding affidavit, denies that there was any personal
service of the main application upon him –
a. On 14 August 2023, Mr Manqele was in Albert Falls, KwaZulu -Natal,
filming season 2 of the television series "lngono Yomsamo." The call
sheet (which he attaches), shows the crew departed for Albert Falls at
06:00 on 14 August 2023 and returned on 18 August 2023. Mr Manqele
says he arrived at Albert Falls before 14 August 2023, because he travels
ahead of the crew;
b. WhatsApp messages between 12 August 2023 and 17 August 2023
indicate communications between Mr Manqele with a colleague, a Mr.
Mkhize, based in KwaZulu- Natal. One message on 14 August 2023 states
"Guys have arrived," to which Mr Manqele responded "I'm outside too" at
14:37. This, he says , refers to being at Albert Falls outside Mr. Mkhize's
house.
c. It would have been impossible to meet with the sheriff at 10:35 AM in
Bryanston and be at Albert Falls at 14:37.
[11] The sheriff deposed to an affidavit setting out what he says happened on 14
August 2023. The sheriff stated –
I confirm that service was completed on the 1st Respondent personally, as he confirmed to me that he is indeed the 1st Respondent. It was served in the
court yard garden to the left of the house. I (sic) copy of my Google Maps
extract is attached hereto marked annexure "RG2". Furthermore, about thirty
minutes following service I was contacted by a person who alleged that he
was the 1st Respondent's attorney informing me that they intend on resolving the matter. Shortly after, the 1st Respondent phoned me personally to enquire
1 10 of 2013
Page 5 of 11
whether his attorney had called me, and again confirmed that the matter was
being resolved.
[12] Mr Manqele in reply states –
... it is clear that the said sheriff failed to confirm the identity of the person he allegedly spoke to (assuming this to be true, which is not conceded).
Insofar as the alleged Google Maps summary relied upon by the said sheriff is concerned, it is not within my knowledge whether or not the sheriff attended in the area of my property that day, but I specifically deny that the sheriff served any documentation on me personally as I was not at the property on 14th of August 2023 as stated in my founding affidavit.
Insofar as the said sheriff alleges that an undisclosed person, alleging to be my attorney phoned him, apparently intendant (sic) "on resolving the matter",
this is specifically denied . I did not instruct any attorney at all in August 2023 and my current attorney of record was instructed for the first time in February 2024 after I received the notice of sale. I sought legal assistance for the first time in February 2024.
Insofar as the said sheriff alleges that I called the sheriff to enquire whether
my attorney had called him and "confirmed that the matter was being resolved", this is specifically denied.
I do not understand what the sheriff means "in the court yard garden to the left of the house". The house itself, is on the left and there is no courtyard garden. There are three other houses at the street address , linked by a driveway.
[13] Neither version concerning the service of the main application is particularly
satisfactory . For example Mr Manqele could easily have filed an affidavit from Mr
Mkhize confirming that Mr Manqele was with him in KwaZulu -Natal on 14 August
2023. Similarly the sheriff could have done more to confirm that the person upon
whom he was serving the main application, was Mr Manqele.
[14] Given that t he sheriff did serve the main application on a person, the question
remains - was that person Mr Manqele? The only evidence supporting this is the
sheriff’s statement that the person he served it on, confirmed that he is the first
Page 6 of 11
respondent (in the main application) . The evidence of Mr Manqele himself
contradicts this.
[15] The sheriff’s statement that he was later contacted by a person who alleged
that he was the first r espondent's attorney is not helpful. Mr Manqele denies that he
was represented by an attorney at the time and i t is doubtful that Mr Manqele was in
fact legally represented at the time. As appears from the founding affidavit, during
2023 Mr Manqele conducted his dealings with the Standard Bank himself and was
not legally represented .
[16] The sheriff goes on to say Mr Manqele telephoned him personally to enquire
whether his attorney had called the sheriff , and confirmed that the matter was being
resolved. This is again denied by Mr Manqele.
[17] The sheriff makes mention of Google Maps. That evidence goes no further
than showing that the sheriff went to the property at that specified time and date.
[18] This is not to say that the sheriff was being untruthful in his affidavit. He made
it clear in his affidavit that he relied on or was repeating what other people had told
him.
[19] SB Guarantee Company submits, correctly, that the onus rests on Mr
Manqele if he wishes to impeach the facts as set out in the return of service. The
sheriff’s return setting out personal service stands as prima facie evidence that such personal service was effected.
[20] Relying on Sussman and Company (Pty) Limited v Schwarzer
2 SB Guarantee
Company submits that the Mr Manqele must show by clear evidence that what is set
out in the return of service is not correct. The Sussman case and the cases that
followed it, were dealing with a sheriff’s nulla bona return under section 8(b) of the
Insolvency Act3.
2 1960 (3) SA 94 (O)
3 No. 24 of 1936
Page 7 of 11
[21] In my view this matter is distinguishable from the Sussman decision. Here we
are dealing with proceedings under Rule 46A. In Absa Bank Ltd v Njolomba and
Another, and Other Cases4, after quoting from Nkata v FirstRand Bank Ltd and
Others5 Fisher J held –
There have, of late, been salutary moves in the statutes, case law , rules, and practice directives to introduce a measure of flexibility into the execution process where it is sought to execute against the home of a debtor. These laws and rules emanate from an accepted need to promote the objects of our Bill of Rights and especially the requirement that all relevant circumstances be considered before depriving a person of his or her home. They include the requirement that immovable property not be executed against without judicial oversight being brought to bear thereon and the recent introduction of rule 46A into the Uniform Rules, which requires that the court consider alternative means of satisfying the judgment debt, other than execution against the judgment debtor's primary residence. The cases have required stringent adherence to notices and service requirement and the furnishing of details in relation to the steps taken to manage the indebtedness of the debtor. Recent
amendments to Rule 46 of the Uniform Rules require the consideration by the
court of alternative means of satisfying the judgment debt. These changes
impose an even more rigorous investigative function on a court faced with an application for a declaration of executability and require still more information to be forthcoming in relation to the debtor's circumstances and the value of the property. This assists in setting appropriate reserve prices and other sale
conditions in the event of execution against the property becoming necessary. How ever, the process has, as its main endeavour, to maintain the mortgage loan and to rehabilitate the debtor if at all possible.
[22] Given the court’s oversight obligations and requirement to consider alternative
means of satisfying the judgment debt which, in turn, require information to be forthcoming in relation to the debtor's circumstances and the value of the property , it
4 2018 (5) SA 548 (GJ)
5 2016 (4) SA 257 (CC)
Page 8 of 11
is important to ensure that the debtor is given the opportunity to place facts before a
court to allow a proper exercise of the court ’s functions under the Constitution and
Rule 46A.
[23] This means that a court should be satisfied that the debtor has been given the
information that he or she requires to place facts before the court to enable the court
to fulfil its functions .
[24] The starting point is for the court to be satisfied that the debtor has been
served with the creditor’s application. In this regard the sheriff’s return of service is
prima facie evidence of what has been done. If the respondent denies personal
service the onus rests on him or her if he or she wishes to impeach the facts set out in the return of service.
[25] In my view and in the context of proceedings under R ule 46A, this onus is
discharged on an ordinary balance of probabilities and not by “ the clearest and most
satisfactory evidence” referred to in Sussman’s case.
[26] Returning to the matter under consideration, Mr Manqele says he was not at
1[…] D[…] Avenue, B […] when the application was served. He says he was in Kwa -
Zulu- Natal and provides some corroborative evidence to this effect. The sheriff, in his
affidavit states that the person upon whom he served the application confirmed that
he was the first respondent (in the main application). There is no evidence available
to decide whether this person understood the question being asked or whether he was being truthful in his answer or not.
[27] Taking all the facts into account, i n my opinion Mr Manqele has discharged
the onus to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the main application was not served on him personally. I therefore find that the court order against Mr Manqele
has been granted erroneously and falls to be rescinded
6.
6 Fraind v Nothmann 1991 (3) SA 837 (W)
Page 9 of 11
Ms Magakoa [28] In terms of the court order, both Mr Manqele and Ms Magakoa were ordered
to pay SB Guarantee Company an amount of R8 294 955.00 plus interest and costs
and the property was declared specially executable.
[29] In Absa Bank Ltd v Mokebe and Related Cases
7 it was held –
…
1. In all matters where execution was sought against a debtor's primary
residence, the entire claim, including the money judgment, had to be adjudicated at the same time. The money judgment in personam was the basis of, and a necessary averment in, the claim in rem for execution. ...
Since the two claims were inextricably interlinked, they had to be brought at the same time in one proceeding. If the matter required postponement, it had to be postponed in its entirety.
… [14] In our view the money judgment is an intrinsic part of the cause of action
and inextricably linked to the in rem claim for an order for execution, the latter
which is non- existent without the money judgment. The default of the debtor
and the money judgment are a precondition for the entitlement of the mortgagee to foreclose.
[15] It is also intrinsically linked because the claim for execution is accessory
in nature and is dependent for its existence on the obligation which it secures.
… [18] We … regard this … as support for the view that personal action for a
money judgment goes hand in hand with the claim in rem based on the bond
judgment, must be adjudicated at the same time.
…
[29] There is, therefore, a duty on banks to bring their entire case, including
the money judgment, based on a mortgage bond, in one proceeding simultaneously. Should the matter require postponement for whatever reason,
7 2018 (6) SA 492 (GJ)
Page 10 of 11
the entire matter falls to be postponed and piecemeal adjudication is not
competent.
[30] In the main application both Mr Manqele and Ms Magakoa were ordered to
pay SB Guarantee Company an amount of R8 294 955.00 plus interest and costs
and the property was declared specially executable.
[31] I have decided that the court order against Mr Manqele has been granted
erroneously and falls to be rescinded. This results in the order declaring the property
specially executable being rescinded.
[32] The personal action for the money judgment against Mr Man qele and Ms
Magakoa is inextricably linked with the claim in rem based on the bond judgment .
With the bond judgment being rescinded, this means that the money judgment in the
court order against Ms Magakoa must be rescinded as well.
Costs
[33] With the judgment being rescinded because of non- service and with no
consideration of the merits, another court will determine whether SB Guarantee Company is in fact entitled to an order on the same or similar terms to the court
order now rescinded.
[34] That court will be in a better position to decide who should bear the costs of
this application. In my opinion therefore, costs should be reserved.
Order
It is ordered –
A. the default judgment granted against Nkululeko Manqele (Identity
number: 890512 5073 082) and Palesa Valentine Magakoa (Identity number: 900306 0048 084) on 11 September 2023 under case number 2023- 050021 is
rescinded;
Page 11 of 11
B. any writ of execution issued by SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd
(Registration Number: 2006/021576/07) pursuant to the court order dated 11
September 2023 under case number 2023- 050021 is set aside;
C. costs are reserved.
A MITCHELL
Acting Judge of the High Court
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email, by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The date for hand- down is deemed to be 24 March 2025.
HEARD ON: 17 February 2025
DECIDED ON: 24 March 2025
For Applicants : Matthew Kerr -Phillips
Attorney with right o f appearance
011 467 4562
matthew@mkplaw.co.za
For First Respondent: Adv AJ Venter
ajventer@law.co.za
082 551 4108
Attorney s
Alexandra Pesci
Martins Weir- Smith Inc
Tel: 011 450 3054
Email: alexb@mwlaw.co.za
For Second Respondent: No appearance