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 NO: 070978/23
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 19/05/2026
SIGNATURE:
In the application of:
THE BODY CORPORATE OF LEISURE BAY Applicant
and
LESEGO L MORETLWE Respondent
JUDGMENT
LABUSCHAGNE J
[1] The respondent is the owner of Unit 1[...] in the sectional title scheme known as
Leisure Bay, Erasmusrand. By virtue of such ownership the respondent is a member of
the Body Corporate of Leisure Bay, the applicant and is liable to pay levies on a monthly
basis. The respondent fell into arrears and the applicant obtained a judgement in the
Magistrates Court on 30 May 2022 for R46 150,52. Thereafter a payment arrangement
was entered into but the respondent, after making two payments, defaulted. The
applicant then proceeded with sequestration proceedings.
[2] The applicant obtained a provisional order of sequestration on 13 November
2023 from Ceylon AJ with a return date of 14 March 2024. This return date was
extended to 24 May 2024 and was again extended to 15 July 2024.
[3] When the respondent filed her answering affidavit, the applicant contends that it
made an error by removing the matter from the roll on 15 July 2024, thereby causing the
discharge of the rule nisi on or about 01 July 2024. An order confirming the lapsing was
granted on 15 July 2024 by Holland-Muter J (in which the date is incorrectly reflected as
15 June 2024).
[4] The applicant now applies in terms of Rule 27(4) for the revival of the lapsed rule
nisi which it had obtained in the sequestration proceedings of the respondent for non -
payment of levies due and payable to the applicant.
[5] When the matter was called, the respondent appeared in person. She contended
that she had made significant payments in July 2024 and that was the reason why the
return date had lapsed. This contention does not bear scrutiny. The answering affidavit
in the sequestration application was signed on 18 June 2024,t he notice to remove is
dated 01 July 2024 and the rule was discharged on 15 Juloy 2024. There is no
indication that the matter had been settled or that the payments made were the reason
why the rule lapsed. I accept that the discharge of the rule was a clerical error on the
part of the applicant.
[6] What is apparent is that the filing of the answering affidavit and the filing of the
subsequent replying affidavit indicated that both parties intended the matter to proceed.
I am satisfied therefore that there is a basis for approaching the court for the
indulgence. However, there are considerations which militate against the granting of the
revival of the rule nisi.
[7] The applicant is seeking an indulgence and must establish good cause for the
revival of the rule nisi in terms of rule 27(4). Part of that onus is to establish that the
respondent won’t be prejudiced. It is this issue that moves me to decline the revival.
[8] The respondent has been paying an amount which she thought was more than
adequate to cover the arrears. She contends that this was done because the
outstanding amounts due by her were not disclosed to her. There is a degree of
acrimony in the communication between the respondent and the applicant. I stood the
matter down for two days in order to enable the parties to try and settle the matter, but
this came to naught.
[9] The outstanding amount of the levies includes legal costs in enforcement
proceedings which, according to the Rules of the Body Corporate, are for the account of
the delinquent homeowner. Nevertheless, the amount in question has increased from
the aforesaid judgment debt (Roughly R46 150) when the provisional order was granted
to an amount in the region of R205 000.00.
[10] The respondent appears resolute in her attempts to save her family home and
were the revival order to be granted, she would be deprived of her locus standi to do
anything in this regard. She would not be in a position to negotiate a settlement with the
applicant. She would not be able to pursue alternative sources of finance to meet her
arrears. All of this, in circumstances where the outstanding amount is but a fraction of
the value of properties within Leisure Bay. Claims by the applicant regularly appear in
this court and although no specific value is attached to the property of the respondent,
the court takes judicial notice thereof that the property value far exceed the amount due
to the Body Corporate for outstanding levies.
[11] Sadly, the respondent is under the impression that pleas of financial pressure are
a defence to an accumulating debt. She has raised the same defence to the revival
a defence to an accumulating debt. She has raised the same defence to the revival
application that she raised to the sequestration application.
[12] I am not satisfied that a revival order should be granted in these circumstances
as it would unduly prejudice the respondent. The purpose of the revival application is to
obtain an opposed motion hearing date, as a provisional order is a precursor to a
sequestration. However, as both parties intended the proceedings to be finalised
through affidavits that they have filed, the matter should proceed, nevertheless. The
prejudice to the parties in respect of the finalisation of the sequestration proceedings
can be cured. It relates to the regulation by the Court of its own affairs. The Court has
wide powers under sec 173 of the Constitution to do so.
[13] The Registrar will be requested to enrol this matter on the next available opposed
date which is 11 August 2026. It will be enrolled as an opposed sequestration
application, despite the absence of a rule nisi returnable on that date.
[14] In the premises the following order is made:
1. It is declared that the rule nisi was discharged in error on 15 July 2024.
2. The application for the revival of the rule nisi is dismissed.
3. Ntwithstanding the aforesaiid , and in the interests of the administration of
justice, the following order is made in terms of sec 173 of the Constitution to
regulate the sequestration proceedings:
3.1 The application for sequestration is postponed to the opposed roll
of 11 August 2026, being the next available date, and the Registrar is
directed to enrol the matter as an opposed sequestration for finalisation.
4. A copy of this order is to be provided to the Registrar forthwith.
5. The parties are directed to comply with the Uniform Rules and Practice
Directives pertaining to filing of updated practice notes and Heads of Argument.
6. No order as to costs.
LABUSCHAGNE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT : ADV VORSTER
INSTRUCTED BY : MAREE ATTORNEYS INC
IN-PERSON RESPONDENT : LESEGO MORETLWE