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
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NUMBER: 6496/2020
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 3 November 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between
MEC OF HEALTH, LIMPOPO PROVINCE 1ST APPLICANT
MAKOMA MAVIES MODIKA 2ND APPLICANT
-and-
AUBREY MOKGOLA 1ST RESPONDENT
SHERIFF, POLOKWANE HIGH COURT 2ND RESPONDENT
Delivered : 3 November 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' legal representatives by e -mail. The date and time for hand
down of the judgment is deemed to be 3 November 2025 at 10:00 am.
Date heard : 30 October 2025
Coram : Bresler AJ
JUDGMENT
BRESLER AJ:
Introduction:
[1] The Applicants applied on an urgent basis for an order staying the writ in
execution that was issued and served on the Applicants on the 25 th of July 2025 and
pending relief contemplated in Part B of the application.
[2] Part B in return prays for an order reviewing and setting aside the writ and
declaring that the judgment debt was paid in full.
[3] The Notice of Motion of the Applicant is somewhat confounding. If one has
regards to the Founding affidavit, it appear s that the relief in Part A and Part B is
sought simultaneously.
[4] The application was served on the Respondent's attorney on the 16th of
October 2025 directing that the Respondent is entitled to deliver its Notice of
intention to oppose by 17 October 2025 and thereafter file his Answering affidavit by
20 October 2025.
[5] When the matter initially came before court on the 28 th of October 2025, the
court did not have access to the Caselines document and could consequently not
hear the matter. The Applicants then granted access to the court and re -enrolled the
matter on Thursday, 30 October 2025.
[6] The court recorded that arguments relating to urgency will be limited to the
enrolment of the matter on Tuesday, as the Applicants could not be blamed for not
properly and timeously ensuring that the correct presiding judge and secretary is
invited.
[7] The Applicants' case is briefly the following:
7.1 The 1 st Respondent instituted action against the 1 st Applicant which
action culminated in a settlemen t being made an order of court on the 24 th of
May 2024.
7.2 On the 3 rd of December 2024, the BAS payment advice was prepared
and approved for payment. The 1 st Respondent's attorneys were however not
registered on the system of service providers and the required documentation
was thus presented to the said attorneys for completion. The documents were
submitted on 10 January 2025.
7.3 On the 20 th of January 2025, the 2nd Respondent removed certain
goods that were previously attached and delivered an invoice in the amount of
R641,603.00 which included capital, interest and the Sheriff's costs at the time.
An additional amount of R19,778.62 was claimed in respect of storage costs.
7.4 On the 14 th of February 2025, the amount as demanded by the 2 nd
Respondent was paid to their offices and the vehicles were released back to
the 1st Applicant.
7.5 On the 17 th of July 2025, the 1 st Respondent re -issued the writ of
execution wherein a further amount in the sum of R86,746.63 was claimed.
On the 25 th of July 2025, the sheriff arrived and attached a motor vehicle
(Ford Ranger with registration number : G[...]). The vehicle has not yet been
removed.
7.6 The Applicants claim that the application is urgent as the 1 st
Respondent issued and caused the warrant to be executed notwithstanding
the judgment debt being paid in full. The Sheriff is entitled to remove the
goods after expiry of a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of attachment.
The Applicant cannot sit and wait until the vehicle is removed.
7.7 The Applicants furthermore submit that by the very nature of the
property that stands to be rem oved, it will have drastic consequences for the
administration of Public Services. It is therefore in the interest of justice to stay
the execution. Substantial redress will therefore not be afforded as the
property will have been sold in execution.
property will have been sold in execution.
7.8 As to the setting aside of the writ, the Applicant submits that the
judgment debt was paid in full. It stands to be noted that the Applicant
pertinently states that the judgement debt was paid 'as per the sheriff's
demand.'
[8] The 1st Respondent opposed the application on the following grounds:
8.1 The 1 st Respondent denies that the matter is urgent. The 1 st
Respondent specifically avers that the alleged urgency is self -created. The
Applicants had knowledge of the warrant as early as 25 July 2025 and did not
provide an explanation for the delay in launching the proceedings. The
Applicants were repeatedly invited to settle the outstanding balance failing
which the 1st Respondent will continue with the execution thereof.
8.2 The Applicants failed to properly address the circumstances which
render the matter urgent and the reasons why redress will not be afforded on
the ordinary roll. These are critical requirements in terms of Uniform Rule
6(12).
8.3 The Applicants have an alternative remedy at thei r disposal being an
application in terms of Rule 45A which can be brought on the ordinary roll.
8.4 The 1 st Respondent included a detailed calculation of the judgment
debt as per the judgment itself and concluded that there was a short payment
of R53,876.94. It is evident from the calculation that the amount, as presented
by the Sheriff, was not in accordance with the terms of the judgment. In the
meantime, further interest and costs accrued.
8.5 As the issuing of the writ is a judicial act, rather than an administrative
act, same cannot be reviewed as per the prayers contained in the Notice of
Motion. The writ is in any event correctly issued and no grounds are submitted
as to why it should be set aside.
[9] It is apposite to note that the return of service from the sheriff states that only
one Ford vehicle was attached.
Issues that require determination:
[10] This Court is called upon to determine if the Applicants have m ade out a case
for the relief prayed for and on an urgent basis.
The Applicable Legal Principles:
Urgency
[1] In the often-quoted decision of East Rock Trading 7(Pty) Ltd v Eagle Valley
Granite (Pty) Lt d1 the court has once again enunciated the t est that needs to be
applied in urgent matters. In paragraph [8] the following is stated:
'In my view the delay in instituting proceedings is not, on its own, a ground for
refusing to regard the matter as urgent. A court is obliged to consider the
circumstances of the case and the explanation given. The important issue is
whether, despite the delay, the applicant can or cannot be afforded
substantial redress at a hearing in due course. A delay might be an indication
that the matter is not as urgent as the applicant would want the court to
believe. On the other hand a delay may have been caused by the fact that the
Applicant was attempting to settle the matter or collect more facts with regard
thereto.'
[2] The 1st Respondent is adamant that it is entitled to continue with the execution
of the writ as it has been correctly issued. Once the writ has been executed the relief
contemplated in the application becomes moot. If a valid sale in execution takes
place, ownership transfers to the purchasers leaving the Applicants with no recourse.
[3] It is trite law that for purposes of urgency, the Court must accept for the
moment that the applicant's case has merits. This Court is of the view that
substantial redress will not be afforded if the matter is to be enrolled in due course
and on the ordinary roll.
Merits
1 2011 JDR 1832 (GSJ)
[4] Rule 45A of the Uniform Rules of Court provides that, the court may on
application, suspend the operation and execution of any order for suc h period as it
may deem fit, provided that in the case of appeal, such suspension is in compliance
with section 18 of the Superior Court Act, Act 10 of 2013.
[5] Contrary to the arguments submitted by the 1 st Respondent that Rule 45A is
the 'alternative remedy' that is available, this Court is of the view that the relief
prayed for is, in fact, premised inter alia on the provisions of Uniform Rule 45A.
[6] In the judgment of De Villiers AJ in BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mega
Burst Oils and Fuels (Pty) Ltd and Another; BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v ZA
Petroleum and Another2 at paragraph [25] it was held:
'A litigant with an enforceable judgment is entitled to payment, and only in rare
cases would be delayed in that process. In my view there may be exceptional
cases where a court would still exercise a discretion to prevent an injustice in
staying execution.'
[11] A Court will grant a stay of execution where real and substantial justice is
required, or an injustice will othe rwise be occasioned as per the decision in Gois t/a
Shakespeare's Pub v Van Zyl and Others3
[12] In Mokone v Tassos Properties CC & another4 the Constitutional Court held
that a court has the discretion to grant a stay of proceedings if it is in 'the int erests of
justice' to do so and that the idea of 'interests of justice' in this context is quite wide.
[13] A court faced with an application for the suspension of execution must
consider the factors that underlie the granting of interim interdicts, with due regard to
the fact that an applicant is not asserting a prima facie right but is seeking to avoid
an injustice.
2 2022 (1) SA 162 (GJ)
3 2011 (1) SA 148 (LC) at para 37.
4 2017 (5) SA 456 (CC), 2017 (10) 8CLR 1261 paras 64-72 at 4748-4768 (SA),
1278E-1280D (BCLR).
The Court must therefore be satisfied that:
13.1 The applicant has a well -grounded apprehension that the execution is
taking place at the instance of the respondent; and
13.2 Irreparable harm will result if execution is not stayed, and the applicant
ultimately succeeds in establishing a clear right.
[14] It follows that irreparable harm will invariably res ult if there is a possibility that
the underlying causa may ultimately be removed or where the underlying causa is
the subject matter of an ongoing dispute between the parties. In casu, the underlying
causa is merely disputed to the extent that the sheriff provided the Applicants with a
calculation. The 1st Respondent has clearly shown that the calculation is incorrect.
[15] The Applicants have not provided the Court with a revised calculation showing
that the Sheriff's statement aligns with the terms of the judgment. In reply, the
Applicants merely again submitted that they have paid what was demanded by the
Sheriff. The 1st Respondent's version must therefore be accepted as correct. Having
said that, it follows that the writ was correctly issued and the 1st Respondent has a
right to execute his judgment.
[16] The Applicants' main contention is that the execution must still be stayed in
the interest of justice as same will interrupt service delivery. As stated herein before,
the sheriff only attached one Ford vehicle. The Applicants failed to expand on the
importance of this specific vehicle in performing their statutory duties to the public.
[17] On this basis, the argument premised on the 'interruption of service delivery'
does not assist the Applicants . The application therefore has no merit and stands to
be dismissed as a whole as it would not serve any purpose to consider the relief in
Part B having considered the validity of the warrant herein before.
Costs:
[18] There is not reason why the costs should not follow the outcome of the
proceedings. The application is fairly uncomplicated and costs on Scale A is
therefore warranted.
Order:
[19] In the result the following order is made:
19.1 The applicat ion is deemed to be sufficiently urgent to be
entertained on the urgent roll.
19.2 The Application is dismissed.
19.4 The Applicants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the
costs.
M BRESLER AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANTS : Adv. AT Raselebana
INSTRUCTED BY : The State Attorney
Polokwane
Tshepoalpheus1@gmail.com
TMasete@justice.gov.za
FOR THE 1st RESPONDENT: Mr. J Moolman
INSTRUCTED BY : Pratt, Luyt & De Lange Attorneys
Polokwane
elaine@prattluyt.co.za