REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
(1)
(2)
(3)
REPORTABLE: YJ?$/NO
OF INTEREST TO THE JU DGES : Yi$/NO
REV ISED.
In the matter between:-
CASE NUMBER: 4307/2022
OSZ TAYOB TRADING PIETERSBURG (PTY)LTD T/A EH HASSIM APPLICANT
AND
PAULINA NTEBO RAMUSI
PAULINA NTEBO RAMUSI N .O
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, PRETORIA
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
FOURTH RESPONDENT
FIFTH RESPONDENT
2
POLOKWANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, POLOKWANE
OAKF IELD BOD Y CORPORA TE
FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED
MANGENAAJ
JU0GMENT
(LEAVE TO APPEAL)
SIXTH RESPONDENT
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
NINTH RESPONDENT
[1] On 06 May 2025 I gave an order authorising execution of two immovable properties
registered in the names of the First R espondent and her late husband, Mr Isiah
Sekgweng R amusi. The authorisation followed an application made by the Applicant
to declare the two imm ovable properties specially executable after the First
Res pondent failed to honour a judgm ent in the amount of R2 059.873.37 granted on
09 June 2020.
[2] The First Re spondent is the executrix in the estate of her late husband to w hom she
was ma rried in community of property. For convenience I have kept the description of
the parties as it appeared in the R ule 46A application to wh ich this application for leave
to appeal relates.
3
[3] The First Respondent seeks leave to appeal against the orders I made and contends
that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
[4] In support of the contention regarding the reasonable prospects of success, counsel
for the First Respondent advanced three grounds of appeal.
[5] The first ground of appeal was that in the opening paragraph of the judgment I said
that "Applicant obtained monetary judgment of R2 059 872.37 plus interest against
the First Respondent, Ms. Paulina Ntebo Ramusi both in her personal capacity and
in her capacity as the executrix of the estate late Isiah Sekgweng Ramusi". It was
submitted that this statement made me to arrive at a wrong conclusion as there was
no judgment obtained against the estate of the late Isiah Sekgweng Ramusi. Had I
appreciated that the late Mr. Ramusi was not a party to the proceedings, I probably
would have not authorised the execution of the property.
[6] The submission is appealing at first blush but does not survive legal scrutiny when
measured against applicable legal principles governing appeals. The undisputed fact
is that an appeal lies against an order and not the reasons. Ms Ramusi is indebted to
the applicant and has exhausted all her legal remedies to challenge the finding that
she is indebted to the Applicant in the amount of R2 059 872.37. The applicant, as
correctly pointed out by her counsel, Advocate Mokwena, is entitled to the
enforcement of thatjudgment. No amount of subterfuge, dilatory and less than perfect
defences should be allowed to delay this. Indeed the rule of law requires that court
orders be obeyed.
4
[7] The First Respondent together with her late husband are registered owners of the two
properties. The Applicant approached the court for an order to have the two properties
declared specially executable in fulfilment of a court judgment. I found she is entitled
to that relief on the basis that she satisfied the requirements listed under Rule 46A of
the Uniform Rules. The correctness of that finding is undisturbed by the erroneous
inclusion of Ms. Ramusi in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of her late
husband. The erroneous inclusion is not a legal finding sufficient to establish a ground
of appeal. There is a difference between a factual statement and a legal finding. An
incorrect factual statement does not automatically leads to a wrong legal finding. As
stated above and supported by many legal authorities, an appeal lies against a
substantive order and not the reasons for judgment. (See Western Johannesburg
Rent Board and Another v Ursula Mansions (Pty) Ltd, 1948 (3) SA 353 (A) at 355).
[8) The other two grounds related to non-joinder of the heirs in the will of the late
Mr. Ramusi as well as the Master of the High Court.
[9] The issue of joinder has been dealt with adequately in the judgment and I remain
unpersuaded that the interest of the heirs can trump the rule of law which requires that
court orders be obeyed and enforced. Their interest is financial and not legal, and their
joinder is not necessary.
[10) The Master of the High Court is a creature of statute and is in law obliged to comply
with court orders and ensure that they are duly executed. I do not read Rule 6(9) to
5
be compulsory in every instance and in any event the execution is against the share
of the property owned by the judgment debtor. The fact that the property is co-owned
with the deceased does not provide sufficient basis to involve the Master of the High
Court.
[11] As explained in the judgment, the heirs will derive their benefit out of the proceeds of
their father's estate once all the debts have been settled. As matters stand , the
deceased's estate is tied to that of the debtor by operation of law. The M aster has no
role to play in this litigation. It is therefore unnecessary to drag her into this
proceedings.
[12] Consequently, leave to Appeal is refused with costs on a party and party scale B of
the High Court.
FOR APPLICANT
FOR RESPONDENT
HEARD ON
DELIVERED ON
APPEARANCES
~ANGENAAJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
SHAHEED DOLLIE INCORPORATED
RAMUS! ATTORNEYS
24 July 2025
30 July 2025