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 n umber: 083931/2024
Date: 9 June 2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
DATE 09/05/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
UMK PROPERTY DEVELOPERS (PTY) LTD Applicant
And
RUAN SEVE RABIE First Respondent
(ID number: 8[...])
Married Out of Community of Property
CLAUDETTE RABIE Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________
MINNAAR AJ ,
[1] On 4 October 2024, this Court ordered that the first respondent’s estate be
placed under provisional sequestration in the hands of the Master of the High
Court, Pretoria. A rule nisi was issued calling on the first respondent and all
other interested parties to show cause, if any, on 14 November 2024 , why the
estate of the first respondent should not be placed under final sequestration.
[2] On 14 November 2024, the first respondent appeared in person , and the rule
nisi was extended to 30 January 2025. The first respondent, on 30 January
2025, delivered a notice of intention to oppose the sequestration application.
The first respondent also appeared in court on 30 January 2025. As a result of
the notice to oppose, the rule nisi was further extended to 2 June 2025.
Despite the delivery of the notice to oppose, the first respondent failed to
deliver an answering affidavit.
[3] On 2 June 2025, the application came before me. The first respondent
appeared in person. The first respondent requested a postponement , with the
main motivation being that he now wishes to apply to rescind the order
granted by this Court on 4 July 2023. The first respondent had a document in
his hand and stated that it was the rescission application, and that a copy of
the application was provided to the applicant’s counsel.
[4] The applicant ’s counsel opposed the request for a postponement and moved
for an order of final sequestration of the first respondent’s estate. Counsel for
the applicant submitted that the rescission application was not issued , and as
such , no rescission application is pending before the C ourt.
[5] According to the first respondent, he could not issue the application as he
could not access the electronic file. Despite being granted ample opportunity
to address the Court on the reason for the lateness of the purported
rescission application, the first respondent could not provide a satisfactory
explanation.
[6] In considering the request for postponement to provide the first respondent
time to proceed with his rescission of judgment application , the following is
relevant :
a. The order of 4 July 2023 was granted in favour of the applicant as a
default judgment against the first respondent, jointly and severally with
ACMR Capital (Pty) Ltd, for payment of the amount of R2 500 000.00,
together with interest and costs (“the default judgment”) .
b. Following the default judgment, the applicant attempted to execute the
order. On 29 November 2023, the first respondent personally informed
the Sheriff that he had no money or disposable assets to satisfy the
writ, and the Sheriff issued a nulla bona return of service. It is thus
evident that the first respondent knew about the default judgment from
at least 29 November 2023, yet he took no steps to rescind the order.
c. On 16 August 2024, the sequestration application was served
personally on the first respondent. In the founding affidavit , the events
leading up to the default judgment were fully addressed. Again, the first
respondent took no steps to lodge a rescission application. Being
aware of the sequestration application, the first respondent also elected
not to oppose same.
d. When the provisional sequestration order was granted on 4 October
2024, the first respondent was not in attendance.
e. On the return date of 14 November 2024, the first respondent was in
attendance. The first respondent is by now acutely aware of the
provisional order, yet he takes no steps to oppose the application or to
rescind the default judgment.
f. It is only on 30 January 2025, one day before the return date of 31
January 2025, that the first respondent delivers a notice of intention to
oppose the sequestration application.
g. Based on this belated notice of intention to oppose, the first respondent
managed to get a further extension of the rule nisi until 2 June 2025.
[7] Having regard to the above, this Court is not convinced that the first
respondent is serious in his attempts to pursue a rescission application or to
oppose the confirmation of the provisional order for sequestration. The
conduct of the first respondent is clearly to frustrate the applicant and to buy
time.
[8] From the submissions made by the first respondent, and on a perusal of the
founding affidavit, the first respondent was an admitted attorney practising for
his own account. He has since been struck from the roll. Having practised as
an attorney, he must know the processes of this Court and the need to attend
to litigation with urgency and seriousness.
[9] I pause to state that even if there were a properly issued application for
rescission, it would not be a bar for the applicant to move for confirmation of
the provisional order for sequestration. It is trite that a rescission application
does not suspend the execution of an order. Absent an application in terms of
Rule 45A of the Uniform Rules of Court, dealing with suspensions of an order
of court, execution of an order can proceed.
[10] The primary consideration for the granting of a postponement is
whether it would be in the interest of justice to grant the postponement. The
Constitutional Court held in Lekolwane and Another v Minister of Justice and
Constitutional Development 2007 (3) BCLR 280 (CC) at para 17 :
'The postponement of a matter set down for hearing on a particular date
cannot be claimed as a right. An applicant for a postponement seeks an
indulgence from the court. A postponement will not be granted unless this
court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so . In this respect the
applicant must ordinarily show that there is good cause for the postponement.
Whether a postponement will be granted is therefore in the discretion of the
court. In exercising that discretion, this court takes into account a number of
factors, including (but not limited to) whether the application has been
timeously made, whether the explanation given by the applicant for
postponement is full and satisfactory, whether there is prejudice to any of the
parties, whether the application is opposed and the broader public interest.'
[11] Considering all the facts before this Court, and the submission made
on behalf of the parties, the Court is not convinced that it would be in the
interest of justice to grant the first respondent any further indulgences. On the
contrary, the interest of justice would dictate that the order prayed for by the
applicant be granted as the applicant is entitled to finality in its litigation.
[12] The applicant has met all the statutory requirements and is entitled to
confirmation of the provisional order.
[13] Consequently, I make the following order:
1. The first respondent’s estate is placed under final sequestration
and in the hands of the Master of the High Court, Pretoria; and
2. The costs of this application shall be costs in the sequestration
of the first respondent’s estate.
Minnaar AJ
Acting Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Heard on : 2 June 2025
For the Applicant / Plaintiff : Adv. M L van Ryneveld
Instructed by : VDT Attorneys Inc
For the First Respondent : In person
Instructed by : In person
Date of Judgment : 9 June 2025