Gavrielides and Another v Theodorou (2023/110116) [2025] ZAGPJHC 841 (21 August 2025)

38 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Execution — Sale in execution — Validity of sale — Property sold in execution without proper notice to judgment debtor — Judgment debtor contended that sale was invalid due to lack of compliance with Rule 46(7) — Court held that failure to provide adequate notice constituted a breach of the debtor's rights, rendering the sale invalid and unenforceable.

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
a,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2023-110116
ee 2
(4) REPORTABLE: YES / NO |
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER |
JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED. YES/NO |
f
| DATE SIGNATURE __
In the matter between:
ANNA GAVRIELIDES First Applicant // First Plaintiff
CONSTANDINOS GAVRIELIDES Second Applicant // Second Plaintiff :
and
SYMEON THEODOROU Defendant
COURT ORDER
A. The applicants’ application for amendment in terms of Rule 28(4) in
respect of their particulars of claim, is dismissed with costs, counsel's
fees to be at Scale C.

B. The plaintiff is granted leave to file a new notice of amendment of
particulars within 21 (twenty-one) days from the date of this order. .
JUDGEMENT
|
INTRODUCTION
(1) This is an opposed interlocutory application in terms of Rule 28(4) by
the first and second applicants to effect substantive amendments to
| particulars of claim in an action they instituted against the respondent.
(2) The respondent opposes the amendments that the applicants (who are
the plaintiffs in the action), wish to effect on various grounds set out in
the defendant's notice to remove the causes for complaints to the
plaintiffs’ particulars of claim in terms of Rule 23(1).
(3) Due to the court’s view of the proposed amendments and the more
concise arguments presented by Ms Goodenough on behalf of the
defendant at the hearing, | will only deal with the most important
objections to the amendments. It is not the function of the court to draw
the particulars of claim for the plaintiffs/applicants.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
| (4) The action instituted claimed relief on various causes of action based :
| on an oral agreement with the respondent to effect additions and
improvements to the plaintiffs home in Sandown.’ Relief was claimed .
under three claims viz Claim A for work paid for but not completed,?
Claim B for damages allegedly caused by the respondent,° and Claim C :
| for payments made for no work undertaken and misappropriation of
| ; various items (taps and tiles).4 An amount was stated to be claimed in
| respect of each of the three claims.
NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE 23(1)
| (6) The respondent gave notice of his intention to defend the action.
|
(8) On 11 December 2023 the respondent delivered the notice to remove
| the cause of complaint in terms of Rule 23(1) already referred to
above.® This notice set out in detail the respondent's objections to the
| , particulars of claim.
| NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
(7) On 15 February 2024 the applicants served a lengthy application for
leave by the court in terms of Rule 28(4) to be granted to amend the
|
1 Caselines, Particulars of Claim (POC), para 5, 01-6.
2 Caselines, para 13.1, 01-13.
3 Caselines, para 13.2, 01-13 to 16.
4 Caselines, para 13.3, 01-16 to 17.
5 Caselines, 02-5 to 02-28.