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 DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2023-101360
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
PEBBLE FALLS BODY CORPORATE APPLICANT
And
MHLELI OPULENCE LINDA 1
st RESPONDENT
EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 2nd RESPONDENT
GREENHOUSE FUNDING 4 RF LTD t/a NEDBANK LTD 3rd RESPONDENT
SHERIFF BOKSBURG 4
th RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT – MAIN APPLICATION
STRYDOM, J
[1] This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks an order to have
the immovable property of the first respondent , namely unit 93, in the scheme
known as Pebble Falls Body Corporate , situated at 4[…] G[…] A venue, C[…]
Ext 1, Boksburg, Gauteng (“the property”) declared specially executable.
[2] The first respondent opposed the application and sought cond onation for the
late filing of his answering affidavit, which the applicant did not oppose. Such
condonation should be granted.
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
______________ _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
[3] The second, third, and fourth respondents are not opposing this application.
[4] On 29 January 2024, a default judgment was granted against the first
respondent in the amount of R477 805. 33 , in respect of arrear levies and
ancillary charges together with interest and costs.
[5] The deponent of the applicant’s founding affidavit , M r. David Brando n
Hirschowitz, states that he has the authority to depose to the affidavit. In the
answering affidavit, his authority and the authority of the applicant’s attorneys
were challenged on the basis that they were not authorized by lawfully
appointed trustees of the applicant to act on their behalf . The first respondent
failed to comply with the procedures under Rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of Court
to clarify issues relating to the authority to institute this application and to
depose to affidavits. Accordingly, this challenge is not competent. (see Eskom v
Soweto City Council 1992 (2) SA 703 (W) at 705F and Ganes v Telecom
Namibia Ltd 2004 (3) SA 615 (SCA) at 624I –625A)
[6] In the first respondent’s answering affidavit, he attempted to make out a case
that the default judgment should not have been granted. This is not competent,
as the court order will remain in effect until it is rescinded. This was not done. A
rescission application was filed only after the current applicant filed a replying
affidavit, in which it was pointed out to the first respondent that he could not
attack the default judgment in this application.
[7] As his recission application was filed after the current application, a hearing
date was obtained on the opposed motion roll for the week of 19 January 2026.
The date the registrar provided for the rescission application was during May
2026. The parties approached me with a request to hear both matters on 19
January 2026. I agreed to the request , and both matters were heard
simultaneously.
[8] In a separate judgment , I refused to grant condonation for the late filing of the
[8] In a separate judgment , I refused to grant condonation for the late filing of the
rescission application, and the same was dismissed.
[9] Consequently, only defences raised concerning the executability of the
immovable property of the first respondent, and not defences relating to the
3
monetary judgment, could be relied upon by him. His main defence, i.e. , that
the trustees of the applicant and the managing agent at present were
improperly elected and appointed, and as such, were unable to validly levy
contributions of the members of the body corporate, could not be relied upon.
[10] This left the respondent without a valid defence against the applicant’s
application to declare his property executable.
[11] The applicant initially alleged that the property was not the respondent's
primary residence . At some stage , the sheriff served legal process at the
respondent's property on a person believed to be a tenant. Later , the applicant
conceded that the property might be the respondent's primary residence. A
supplementary affidavit was filed, showing that the requirements of Rule 46A
were met. The market value and local authority valuation were provided. Also,
the amount owing on a mortgage bond, outstanding rates and taxes due, and
the amount of the outstanding body corporate levies. These amounts were not
disputed by the respondent except for his allegation that the body corporate
could not levy contributions through unlawfully appointed agents.
[12] The sworn valuation of the property indicated the market value to be
R440 000.00 and a forced sale value of R280 000.00. The municipal valuation
stood at R 439 000.00. The outstanding bond amount was R329 548.00.
R33 355.00 was owed to the local municipality . The judgment debt was for
R447 805.33, and as at August 2025, the arrear contribution had increased to
an amount of R610 735.65. This amount is currently even higher.
[13] For more than 6 years, the respondent has made no contributions whatsoever ,
all because the respondent alleges that the trustees and the managing agents
were not lawfully appointed. He will resume payments when he is satisfied with
the validity of the trustees' appointment.
[14] What has become clear is that there is no equity value left in the property. For
[14] What has become clear is that there is no equity value left in the property. For
that reason, a reserve price should not be determined.
4
[15] I am satisfied that the respondent failed to put up any valid defence agai nst the
relief sought by the applicant in its notice of motion. The following order is
made:
a. The immovable property of the first respondent situated at Unit 9[ …] ,
Pebble Falls, 4[ …] G[…] Avenue, C […] Ext 1, Boksburg, Gauteng ,
registered under Title Deed ST24678/2010 , together with the exclusive
use area registered under Notarial Bond S[… ] (“the property”), is declared
specifically executable.
b. It is ordered that a writ of execution is to be issued in respect of the
property.
c. The first respondent is to pay the costs of this application.
___________________________
R. STRYDOM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Heard on: 19 January 2026
Delivered on: 26 January 2026
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv. P.J. Badenhorst
Instructed by: Heerschop Pienaar Incorporated Attorneys
For the Respondent: Adv. B. Yalezo
5
Instructed by: Thokozani Radebe Incorporated