1
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 LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2025-209624
In the matter between:
NEDBANK LIMITED Applicant
and
PATIENCE BONGEKILE THWALA Respondent
JUDGMENT
VETTER, AJ
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant is the respondent’s mortgagee. It seeks payment of the
balance outstanding under a home loan and an order declaring the
respondent’s home specially executable under rule 46A of the Uniform Rules.
It asks that the sale be at a reserve price of R153 600 , and for costs on the
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
31 August 2026
DATE SIGNATURE
2
attorney and client scale for which the mortgage bond provides. 1 In later
submissions it also sought an order that, if the reserve were not achieved, the
unit could be offered again without reserve, subject to confirmation by the
Court. The respondent admits the debt and the breach. She resists execution
because the unit is her home, because her grandson lives with her and has
chronic asthma, and because she says she can resume payment. She
appeared in person throughout.
[2] The matter was argued on 24 August 2026 and stood down to 10:00 on 28
August 2026. I directed the parties to place before me, by 17:00 on 27
August, an affidavit attaching a levy statement from the body corporate or its
managing agent. It was to identify separately the levies outstanding, the
interest, the legal, collection and administrative charges, and any other
amount in the balance. I asked at the same time for short submissions on the
treatment of the arrear levies and on the reserve price sought. The applicant
delivered a supplementary affidavit and written submissions on 27 August.
The respondent delivered a short affidavit in her own hand on 28 August,
together with the papers in an action brought against her in the Regional
Court by the body corporate.
[3] Because she is unrepresented, I explained to the respondent at the resumed
hearing what rule 46A requires me to weigh, and why a payment tender which
does not cure the debt is not an alternative to execution. I explained what a
reserve price is, and what follows if it is not achieved. She was given the
opportunity to deal with the applicant’s later material and took no objection to
its reception.
[4] I grant the money judgment and declare the unit specially executable. I
refuse to authorise a sale without a reserve price and I fix the reserve at
R 153 600, the figure the applicant proposes on affidavit. That is far below
what the unit is worth, and the reasons for it are the substance of this
what the unit is worth, and the reasons for it are the substance of this
judgment. In short , a sectional title unit cannot be transferred until the body
corporate has been paid or satisfied, and the amount it demands falls on a
1 Notice of motion, CaseLines 005-2 to 005-3
3
purchaser over and above his bid. On the amounts asserted (which have not
been finally established) a reserve at the value of the unit would be unlikely to
attract a bid. Meanwhile the respondent’s indebtedness is growing, on
documented figures, by between about R 19 000 and R 22 000 a month.
[5] Four questions arise. First, should the updated affidavits be received?
Second, has the applicant established the requirements for a money judgment
and for execution against a primary residence? Third, do the respondent’s
circumstances or her payment proposal disclose a satisfactory alternative to
execution? Fourth, should the unit be sold without a reserve if the reserve is
not achieved and at what figure should the reserve be fixed?
B. THE FACTS
[6] The following facts are common cause. On 28 November 2019 the applicant
advanced R 805 037 to the respondent under a home loan agreement. She
secured her obligations by registering mortgage bond S […] over Section 37 in
the scheme known as C[...] G[...], 5 […] E[…] Crescent, S […] , a unit of 76
square metres held under deed of transfer S […] . The bond secures the
applicant’s enforcement costs on the attorney and client scale.
2 She fell into
arrears and she admits both the debt and the breach.
[7] The agreement is a credit agreement governed by the National Credit Act 34
of 2005. I am satisfied that the applicant delivered a notice under section
129(1)(a) to the respondent’s chosen address; that the period prescribed by
section 130(1) elapsed before these proceedings were instituted; and that she
did not bring the account up to date, refer the agreement to debt review or
propose any other arrangement the Act permits. 3 No debt review or other
statutory process is pending.
[8] In her answering affidavit the respondent says that she and her grandson live
in the unit and that he came into her care after her mother’s death. He has
chronic asthma, and his schooling and a food allowance are funded from a
chronic asthma, and his schooling and a food allowance are funded from a
2 Mortgage bond, clause 17, CaseLines 005-53.
3 Notice in terms of section 129(1)(a) and proof of delivery, CaseLines 005-54 to 005-56.
4
trust established by his late father. She said she had been reinstated by the
Department of Public Works and would resume ordinary instalments from 15
February 2026. Her heads of argument take a different position: she is not in
full-time employment and asks for 12 months in which to pay half the
instalment.4 I have read her affidavits and her heads together and
generously, and I decide the matter on the version most favourable to her.
C. THE UPDATING AFFIDAVITS
[9] In July 2026, after the affidavits had been exchanged, the applicant filed an
updated arrears and rates affidavit and an updated valuation affidavit. No
application for leave accompanied them. Further affidavits may be filed only
with leave, and the overriding considerations are prejudice and the interests of
justice.
5 These affidavits contain current material necessary to the rule 46A
enquiry and without them the valuation and the charges standing against the
unit would be two years old. The respondent was afforded the opportunity to
deal with them and took no objection. I receive them. The supplementary
affidavit of 27 August was filed under my own direction and needs no leave.
[10] The updated affidavit records arrears of R 470 758.76 as at 23 July 2026,
being about 41 instalments at the current instalment of R 11 403.76. The last
payment was made on 10 May 2024. The balance outstanding at 23 July
2026 was R 1 435 576.03.
6 The respondent does not dispute those figures.
[11] The money judgment I grant is nonetheless for R 1 312 061.63. That is the
amount claimed in the notice of motion, being the balance certified as at 1
October 2025, with interest at 11.35% per annum compounded monthly in
arrear from that date.7 The updating affidavits do not amend that claim. They
4 Answering affidavit, paras 4 –12, CaseLines 010- 2 to 010 -3; respondent’s heads of argument,
CaseLines 014-7.
5 South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd v South African Broadcasting Corporation Pension
Fund 2019 (4) SA 608 (GJ) at paras 38 and 41. Rule 6(5)(e).
6 Updated arrears affidavit, paras 4 –5 and 7, CaseLines 015-2; annexure JBWR 1, CaseLines 015 -14
to 015-15. The original certificate of balance, at CaseLines 005 -53, certifies the balance as at 1
October 2025.
7 Notice of motion, paras 1 to 5, CaseLines 005-2 to 005-3; certificate of balance, CaseLines 005-53.
5
place the current account position before me for the purposes of the rule 46A
enquiry, and no amendment of the notice of motion was sought or granted.
D. EXECUTION
[12] The unit is the respondent’s primary residence and was acquired with the loan
the applicant advanced. The respondent did not allege that it was acquired
with a State housing subsidy. Rule 46A gives a homeowner judicial oversight,
not immunity from execution. Where there is another reasonable means of
paying the debt, execution against a home is ordinarily undesirable; where
there is none, it may be authorised unless it would be grossly
disproportionate.
8
[13] The respondent identifies no alternative beyond her own proposed payments.
There is no evidence of other assets, of a funded arrangement, of a debt
review proposal, of a prospective private purchaser or of a family contribution.
The trust she mentions funds her grandson’s schooling and a food allowance,
and she does not suggest that it can be applied to the mortgage debt.
Nothing suggests that execution against movables would recover a material
part of a debt of that magnitude.
[14] I take her version at its highest. Her grandson lives with her and he has
chronic asthma. But the question is what execution would do to them, and on
that there is nothing. N o evidence that a move would interrupt his treatment,
and none that either would be left without accommodation. Losing this unit
will be hard. Hardship, without more, is not disproportionality. Nor has she
shown a means of paying. On her affidavit she would pay the ordinary
instalment from 15 February 2026; on her heads, half of it. Neither touches
arrears of R 470 758.76, and half the instalment is R 5 701.88, which leaves a
shortfall every month before anything is paid towards arrears, interest, rates
or levies. Nothing was paid after 15 February 2026 in any event, and at the
resumed hearing she confirmed that she is unemployed and without income.
resumed hearing she confirmed that she is unemployed and without income.
8 Jaftha v Schoeman; Van Rooyen v Stoltz [2004] ZACC 25; 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC) at paras 56 and
58; Gundwana v Steko Development and Others 2011 (3) SA 608 (CC) at para 54; NPGS Protection
and Security Services CC and Another v FirstRand Bank Ltd 2020 (1) SA 494 (SCA) at para 55.
6
That is not a reason to refuse execution. It confirms that no alternative means
of satisfying the debt has been shown. Execution is warranted.
[15] I informed the respondent that she may avoid a sale by settling the
indebtedness before the unit is sold in execution. In particular, the National
Credit Act preserves her right to reinstate the agreement before the sale in
execution by paying the overdue amounts together with permitted default
charges and reasonable enforcement costs. Nothing in this judgment affects
that right, and I record it so that she is aware of it.
9
E. THE RESERVE PRICE
[16] Rule 46A(8)(e) empowers me to determine a reserve price and rule 46A(9)(a)
requires me to consider whether one should be set. Rule 46A(9)(b) lists the
factors. Four matter here: the market value; the amounts owing as rates and
levies; the reduction of the judgment debtor’s indebtedness, whether or not
equity may be found; and the likelihood of the reserve not being realised and
of the unit not being sold.
10
[17] The applicant’s valuer puts the market value at R 850 000 and the forced-sale
value at R 595 000. The municipal valuation is R 890 000 and municipal
charges are R 26 351.26 as at 7 May 2026. 11 The body corporate’s running
account stands at R 747 647.69 on a statement rendered to 30 September
2026. That statement charges the September levies and services in advance;
excluding them, the balance at the date of this judgment is R 742 054.33. A
separate account for legal fees stands at R 23 479.21.
12 With the municipal
charges the asserted burden is therefore R 791 884.80. These are account
9 Section 129(3) and (4) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005.
10 The factors are set out in full in Firstrand Bank Ltd v Armugam 2023 JDR 2979 (GJ) at para 18.
Rule 46A(5)(a) requires the execution creditor to place before the court, among other things, the
market value, the local authority valuation, the amounts owing on registered bonds, the amounts
owing to the local authority as rates, and the amounts owing to a body corporate as levies.
11 Updated valuation affidavit and annexures, CaseLines 015 -9 to 015-23; updated arrears affidavit,
paras 7.1–7.5, CaseLines 015-2.
12 Supplementary affidavit of J B W Robertson, 27 August 2026, paras 6 to 11 and 24, CaseLines
018-2 to 018-5; annexures B and C, CaseLines 018-13 and 018-14. The second account is rendered
in the name “P.B. Twala” against the same unit and scheme; the abbreviated spelling is an error
and not a different debtor or property.
7
figures and not a clearance figure, and the amount will necessarily change
before transfer. There is no equity . The amount owing exceeds the market
value by more than R 460 000. What a reserve protects here is therefore not
equity but the size of the debt the respondent will still owe once she has lost
her home.
The levy statement does not answer the direction
[18] The statement was obtained on 27 August 2026 but is rendered to 30
September 2026, so that the September charges are debited before they fall
due. Of the R 747 647.69, R 691 782.37 sits in the column for amounts 120
days and older, brought forward as one figure on 1 August 2026. Only two
months are itemised: R 8 602.35 for August and R 5 593.36 for September.
Each carries a monthly levy of R 2 647.53, a geyser insurance premium of
R 79, a Community Schemes Ombud Service levy of R 40 and a maintenance
reserve levy of R 330. The rest is electricity and water on meter readings.
[19] So, the total is not a levy figure, it includes services consumed, an insurance
premium and a statutory levy payable elsewhere. And it discloses no interest
at all. The managing agent’s answer to my direction went no further than
three propositions: that interest is charged at 2% a month; that a purchaser
will be liable for the full outstanding amount, including interest and charges;
and that a clearance certificate will issue only once the account has been
settled and brought up to date.
13 If interest is charged it is inside the figure
brought forward and cannot be seen. What the applicant puts up is therefore
an asserted account balance, not a reconciled figure which the body
corporate confirms would secure a certificate.
[20] I make no finding about what is due to the body corporate. It is not before me,
and Marsh Rose holds that its statutory rights cannot be determined in
proceedings to which it is not a party.
14 Nor do I find that the whole balance
proceedings to which it is not a party.
14 Nor do I find that the whole balance
bears interest, or that the rate has been authorised as the scheme’s rules
13 Annexure A to the supplementary affidavit, CaseLines 018-8.
14 Body Corporate of Marsh Rose v Steinmuller [2023] ZASCA 143; 2024 (2) SA 270 (SCA) at paras
23, 26, 28-30 and 36.
8
require. I could not, on this material. That is the point because the answer to
the question I asked is no, and the consequence is that the figure cannot be
used as though it were established.
[21] The respondent put up the papers in an action which the body corporate has
brought against her in the Regional Court, in which it claims R 295 580.76.
She does not understand how that can be right when the account she has
been shown is about R 600 000. The explanation is that the two figures
answer different questions. The Regional Court claim is confined to the
pleaded period ending on 1 February 2026 and seeks R295 580.76 in respect
of levy and levy related charges for that period. The embargo on transfer is
not so confined. Section 15B requires certification that all money due in
respect of the unit has been paid or provided for, and on the body corporate’s
own account that includes services, interest and its costs of recovery. The
action therefore does not tell her, or a purchaser, what will be required before
transfer.
Neither method of fixing the reserve works
[22] The applicant does not contend for a reserve derived from value. It relies on
Diphare. Du Plessis J there recorded the practice of this division of taking the
forced sale value as the starting point and deducting the rates, taxes and
levies, since a purchaser must pay those to obtain a clearance certificate.
15
Where no forced sale value is given it relies on the formula applied in
Armugam, which averages the market and municipal valuations, takes 70%
and makes the same deductions. 16 Either produces a negative figure. The
applicant’s own deduction takes the rates and the levy account but leaves out
the legal fee account: R 595 000 less R 773 998.95 is minus R 178 998.95,
and the formula gives minus R 164 998.95. On the burden as I have
described it the results are minus R 196 884.80 and minus R 182 884.80. A
negative price being impermissible, the applicant asks for the figure it
negative price being impermissible, the applicant asks for the figure it
15 Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Diphare and Another 2026 JDR 2230 (GJ) at para 17.
16 Armugam above n 11 at para 26; and see Absa Bank Ltd v Lekhethoa (33086/2019) [2023]
ZAGPJHC 967; 2023 JDR 3281 (GJ) at para 24, where the “Opperman formula” is described without
the deduction for levies.
9
proposes, together with an order that if the unit does not sell the bidding may
begin again with no reserve.
[23] The formula gives no answer here, and not only because its output is
negative. A negative result does not license a sale at any price. What it
reports is that the burden a purchaser must carry exceeds what the unit is
worth to him. That is a reason to pause before selling, not a reason to sell for
nothing. The prior difficulty is that the deduction cannot honestly be made.
The levies are not established, for the reasons given. Nor are the rates
because a municipality may demand, as the price of a clearance certificate,
only the debts of the two years preceding the application,
17 and historic
municipal debt is not carried over to the new owner after transfer. Nothing
shows over what period the R 26 351.26 accrued. A subtraction whose
subtrahend is unknown yields nothing.
[24] Nor can the valuer’s forced sale figure serve. Armugam preferred the valuer’s
figure to the parties’ unsupported opinions and fixed the reserve there,
18 but it
did not stop at value, it asked separately whether the figure was realistically
achievable and satisfied itself that it was. Rule 46A(9)(b) requires that step. I
cannot take it here. Section 15B(3)(a)(i)(aa) of the Sectional Titles Act 95 of
1986 creates no claim against a purchaser; it is an embargo securing the
money due by the owner, and it works by preventing transfer until that money
is paid or provision is made to the body corporate’s satisfaction.
19 The
applicant’s own conditions of sale place the body corporate’s levies on the
purchaser in addition to his bid. 20 So on the amounts asserted a bidder at
R 595 000 would have to find R 1 386 884.80 in all for a unit worth R 850 000.
17 Jordaan and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality [2017] ZACC 31; 2017 (6) SA
287 (CC) at paras 20 and 25.
18 Armugam above n 11 at paras 5, 26 and 27.
287 (CC) at paras 20 and 25.
18 Armugam above n 11 at paras 5, 26 and 27.
19 Marsh Rose above n 15 at paras 28-30 and 36. The embargo operates whether or not the sale is
in execution and secures all money due, not only levies. The conditions of sale confine the
purchaser’s obligation to levies, but their narrower language can have no bearing on the body
corporate’s rights: id at para 26. The embargo creates no preference in the distribution of the
proceeds outside insolvency: id at para 23.
20 Draft conditions of sale, annexure E to the supplementary affidavit, clauses 5, 6.1.1 to 6.1.3 and
8, CaseLines 018-19 to 018-20.
10
[25] Lekhethoa shows what that does to an auction. There a reserve of R 375 000
was not met although thirty prospective bidders attended. The sheriff
attributed the failure to the reserve exceeding market value, and to arrear
rates of R 22 048 and levies of R 100 000 being too high. 21 The levies
asserted here are more than seven times that figure. I make no finding that
they are due, or that they will be required in that sum. But their asserted size,
and the uncertainty attaching to them, bear directly on whether a reserve at
the valuer’s figure would attract a bid, and on this material, I cannot find that it
would.
What delay is costing the respondent
[26] A reserve which is not achieved is not protection. It is delay, and the record
shows what delay costs this respondent. She has paid nothing since 10 May
2024. Over the period covered by the applicant’s two affidavits the balance
under the bond rose from R 1 312 061.63 to R 1 435 576.03, which is
R 123 514.40 in under ten months without a rand of new borrowing.
22 Interest
on that debt runs at about R 13 578 a month on terms which are not in
dispute. The body corporate’s account demonstrably carries a further
R 8 602.35 and R 5 593.36 for the two itemised months, against which
R 1 500 was paid. On documented figures alone, and leaving levy interest
out of account, her indebtedness grows by between about R 19 000 and
R 22 000 a month. Her own proposal was to pay R 5 701.88. The reserve I
fix is some seven or eight months of that accrual.
[27] Transfer would not undo any of it. It would not extinguish what the body
corporate already claims, and interest would continue on whatever remains
under the bond once the proceeds are applied. What it would do is end her
ownership, and with it the accrual against her of the levies, services and
municipal charges which arise because she owns the unit. She cannot stop
them by paying, that is the finding I have made. She cannot stop them by
them by paying, that is the finding I have made. She cannot stop them by
selling privately, because a private purchaser meets the same obstacle at the
21 Lekhethoa above n 17 at paras 7-9 and 34.
22 Supplementary affidavit, para 24.3, CaseLines 018- 5 (the balance at 1 October 2025); updated
arrears affidavit, paras 4-5 and 7, CaseLines 015-2 (the balance at 23 July 2026).
11
deeds office. If the reserve is set where the unit is unlikely to be sold, she
does not receive R 595 000; she receives nothing and keeps the account.
Protecting a price, she will never be paid is not protection. Between a sale at
a low price and no sale at all, her interests lie with the sale.
The figure
[28] The reserve must therefore be low enough that a sale could take place if the
amount actually required for transfer proves lower than the account figure. It
must be high enough to prevent the unit being knocked down for a pittance,
which is what rule 46A exists to prevent.23
[29] I fix it at R 153 600. It is not a valuation, and I do not pretend otherwise; the
only evidence of value is the R 595 000 I have discussed. It is the amount the
applicant has stated on affidavit that it is prepared to see this unit sold for. It
is therefore the floor below which the party with the real interest in a sale has
itself said the sale should not go. I adopt it as a guarded figure, and I do not
predict that a sale will follow. On the amounts asserted a bidder at that
reserve would have to find R 945 484.80 in all, which is more than the unit is
worth. That is a further reason not to treat those amounts as final. It is not a
reason to fix a higher reserve, because on the same arithmetic a higher one is
worse.
[30] I have considered postponing the reserve until a reconciled clearance figure is
available, and I do not take that course. The material which would be needed
is not in the applicant’s gift. The body corporate is not a party, the account it
has rendered is the account it chooses to render, and a postponement would
be likely to secure no more than a further statement of the same kind. The
price would be months of delay on a congested roll, and every month of it is
added to a debt the respondent cannot pay. Rule 46A(9)(b) does not require
certainty that a reserve will be achieved. It requires the likelihood to be
certainty that a reserve will be achieved. It requires the likelihood to be
weighed with the other factors. Weighed here, they favour a sale now, at a
figure the execution creditor has sworn it will accept and with the protections
23 Lekhethoa above n 17 at paras 29 and 41-5, discussing Nxazonke v Absa Bank Ltd, and Bestbier v
Nedbank Ltd [2022] ZASCA 88; 2023 (4) SA 25 (SCA), on appeal 2024 (4) SA 331 (CC).
12
set out below, over an adjourned enquiry which may well end in the same
place.
What goes with the figure
[31] Two things go with it, and one does not. The first is that I refuse the order that
the bidding be allowed to begin again without a reserve if the unit does not
sell. That is a no reserve sale authorised in advance of the auction and
before anything is known about why it failed. The rule already provides the
answer. Where the reserve is not achieved the sheriff must report within five
days. The court must then reconsider the factors and order how execution is
to proceed, including whether the unit is to be sold to the person who made
the highest bid.
24 That is a far better foundation for such an order than the
present one, which is none.
[32] The second is disclosure. A reserve set this far below value is defensible only
if the auction is a real one, and it cannot be real if bidders do not know the
size of the burden they take on. The applicant’s draft conditions tell a
purchaser that he will be liable for the municipal and body corporate amounts
but not what they are. Under rule 46A(8)(a) , I direct that the conditions state
the amounts most recently furnished and the dates as at which they were
furnished. I require the applicant to obtain those figures shortly before the
sale and to give them to the sheriff and to the respondent. That binds nobody
to the figures, and the conditions already record that such amounts are
estimates.
[33] What I do not do is make an order against the body corporate. Rule
46A(8)(b)(ii) would permit me to order it to furnish the levies due to it. But it
has not been joined and has had no notice of these proceedings. An order
directed at a stranger to them would need machinery for service, for a
response and for enforcement, and that would delay a sale which is already
overdue. The applicant must obtain the clearance figures in order to give
overdue. The applicant must obtain the clearance figures in order to give
24 Rule 46A(9)(c), (d) and (e), reproduced in Armugam above n 11 at paras 6 -7 and applied in
Lekhethoa above n 17 at paras 13- 18. See also Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd N.O. v Kubheka 2022
(5) SA 168 (GJ) at paras 34 -40 and SB Guarantee Co (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Hlongwane 2025 (3) SA 640
(GP) at paras 24-32.
13
transfer at all. Requiring it to obtain them earlier, and to disclose them,
achieves what is needed without binding anyone who is not before me.
[34] Because the respondent has no lawyer, I set out shortly what this order does.
The unit may not be sold for less than R 153 600 without a further order of
court. If that price is not achieved the sheriff must report to the court, and no
sale at a lower price may take place until the court has considered that report.
She will be given the body corporate’s and the municipality’s figures before
the sale. At any time before the unit is sold, she may bring the loan up to date
in the manner the National Credit Act allows and keep her home. Because
the debt is larger than the value of the unit, she will still owe the difference
after any sale. That is why the price matters to her, and why I have not
allowed the unit to be sold for nothing.
F. COSTS
[35] The bond provides for costs on the attorney and client scale. The respondent
was unrepresented and will lose her home, and a punitive scale increases a
debt she cannot pay. But she admitted the debt and the breach. The
applicant was entitled to enforce a substantial secured debt after a long
default, and nothing in the conduct of the opposition would justify relieving her
of a term of her own bargain. The hearing of 28 August stands differently. It
was necessary because the applicant had not placed the levies before the
court as rule 46A(5)(a) required, and the statement it obtained does not
establish them either.
25 She should not pay for that.
G. ORDER
[36] I make the following order:
1. The updated arrears and rates affidavit and the updated valuation
affidavit are received.
25 Compare Armugam above n 11 at paras 29 -31, where the execution creditor’s principal relief was
a sale without reserve and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
14
2. Judgment is granted in favour of the applicant against the respondent
for payment of R 1 312 061.63.
3. Interest is payable on that amount at 11.35% per annum, compounded
monthly in arrear, from 1 October 2025 to date of final payment, both
days inclusive.
4. The following immovable property is declared specially executable:
A unit consisting of —
(a) Section No. 37 as shown and more fully described on Sectional
Plan No. SS229/1990 in the scheme known as C[...] G[...], in
respect of the land and building or buildings situated at
Sunninghill Township, Local Authority: City of Johannesburg
Metropolitan Municipality, of which section the floor area,
according to the said sectional plan, is 76 (seventy -six) square
metres in extent; and
(b) an undivided share in the common property in the scheme
apportioned to the said section in accordance with the
participation quota as endorsed on the said sectional plan,
held under Deed of Transfer No. S […] and subject to such
conditions as are set out in the said deed, situated at Unit 3[ … ],
C[…] G[…] , 5[…] E[…] Crescent, S[…] , Sandton, Gauteng.
5. The Registrar is authorised to issue a warrant of execution against the
immovable property described in paragraph 4.
6. The application for an order authorising the sale of the immovable
property without a reserve price is refused. So is the application for an
order that the property may be offered again without a reserve price if
the reserve price is not achieved.
7. The immovable property shall be sold in execution by the sheriff to the
highest bidder, subject to a reserve price of R 153 600.
8. The applicant shall, not more than 30 days before the date set for the
sale in execution, request in writing —
(a) from the body corporate of the C[...] G[...] sectional title scheme,
a statement of the amount it requires before it would certify in
15
terms of section 15B(3)(a)(i)(aa) of the Sectional Titles Act 95 of
1986; and
(b) from the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, a
statement of the amount it requires for a certificate in terms of
section 118(1) of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act
32 of 2000,
and shall deliver copies of those statements, or a written
account of any failure to furnish them, to the sheriff and to the
respondent.
9. In terms of rule 46A(8)(a), the conditions of sale shall state, and shall
bring to the attention of prospective bidders, the amounts referred to in
paragraph 8 and the dates as at which they were furnished.
10. If the reserve price is not achieved at the sale in execution, the sheriff
shall submit a report in terms of rule 46A(9)(d). The applicant may
thereafter approach this Court, on these papers duly supplemented
and on notice to the respondent, for such relief under rule 46A(9)(c)
and (e) as may be appropriate. That includes a reconsideration of the
reserve price, or confirmation of the highest bid or offer. Nothing in this
order pre-determines the exercise of that discretion.
11. The respondent is advised that, subject to section 129(4) of the
National Credit Act 34 of 2005, she may reinstate the credit agreement
in terms of section 129(3) by paying the overdue amounts, the
applicant’s permitted default charges and reasonable enforcement
costs. She may obtain the amount required from the applicant on
request.
12. A copy of this order shall be served on the respondent by the sheriff,
personally or by affixing it to the immovable property. Service shall be
effected as soon as is practicable, and in any event before any sale in
execution.
16
13. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs on the scale as between
attorney and client, save that each party shall bear its own costs of the
hearing on 28 August 2026.
___________________________
VETTER, AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
Appearances
For the Applicant: Mr K M Boshomane
Instructed by: Fairbridges Wertheim Becker Attorneys
For the Respondent: In-person
Date of hearing: 24 and 28 August 2026
17
Date of judgment: 31 August 2026
This Judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by email and publication on CaseLines and SAFLII. The date for the
handing down is deemed 31 August 2026.