In the matter between:
JAN Van Den Bos N.O. Applicant
and
MOHLOKI, HERMAN RAMOKHELE First Respondent
MOHLOKI, PATRICIA Second Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
AND
Case No.: 2020/11191
In the matter between:
JAN Van Den Bos N.O. Applicant
and
NGCAMEVA, NOMVAKALISO FLORENCE First Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email and is deemed to be handed down upon such circulation.
Gilbert AJ:
1. Can, and should, this court as a division of the High Court declare immovable property specially executable pursuant to orders granted in the magistrates’ court? Further, does Uniform Rule 46A apply only in respect of execution against residential immovable property that are the primary residences of judgment debtors, or to all residential immovable property”
2. The relevant facts for purposes of the judgment can be briefly stated.
3. The applicant acts in his capacity as a court appointed administrator of the Panarama Place body corporate for a sectional title scheme established in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, 1986. The sectional title scheme is situated in Berea, Johannesburg.
4. The relevant respondents are registered owners of sections (units) in the sectional title scheme. The applicant acting in his capacity as administrator of the body corporate obtained orders by default against the relevant respondents in the Johannesburg Magistrates’ court for arrear contributions and other charges owing to the body corporate. Attempts to execute on warrants of execution issued out of the magistrates’ court were unsuccessful as no attachable movable assets belonging to the respondents could be found at the units, with the deputy sheriffs rendering nulla bona returns of service. Applications by the respondents in the magistrates’ court for rescission of the default orders failed. The respondents have sought to appeal the refusal of the rescissions to the High Court. The applicant contends that the respondents are not pursuing those appeal proceedings with any vigour.
