The Johannesburg High Court has overturned a R269,448 default judgment against a Sandhurst Towers property owner after the body corporate’s own building manager received the summons but the documents went missing and never reached the owner.
Judge Ingrid Opperman set aside the judgment, along with a subsequent order authorising the execution of the owner’s residential property, after finding that the legal proceedings had been affected by serious procedural failures.
The case involved N Mabaso, who approached the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to rescind two orders obtained by the Body Corporate of Sandhurst Towers.
The first order, granted by the registrar on August 15, 2024, required Mabaso to pay R269,448, together with interest and costs. The second order, granted on June 19, 2025, authorised the execution of her sectional-title unit and her share in the common property.
Mabaso argued that she had never received the summons that led to the default judgment. She also challenged the subsequent execution order, saying the body corporate had obtained broader relief than the application served on her had indicated.
Building manager received the summons
According to the judgment, the sheriff recorded that the summons had been served at Mabaso’s unit on July 24, 2024, on A Padayachee, the building manager.
Padayachee was not Mabaso’s tenant, relative or employee but worked for the body corporate itself.
Although the management rules designated Mabaso’s unit as her address for service, the court found that the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the summons raised concerns about whether it would reach her.
The unit was vacant at the time. The body corporate had procedures requiring security personnel to retain legal documents delivered to vacant units until the owner collected them. If the documents remained uncollected, they were supposed to be attached to the unit’s door.
However, the body corporate could not establish that these procedures had been followed. It also searched for the summons but could not find it and conceded that Mabaso might never have received it.
Judge Opperman found that the matter went beyond a situation in which documents had been properly served but had simply failed to reach the intended recipient.
The judge said the body corporate’s own manager had received the summons, the unit was vacant, and the procedures intended to ensure that the documents reached the owner had not been shown to have been followed.
These circumstances should have been disclosed to the registrar so that further service could be considered before judgment was granted.
The court concluded that the default judgment had been erroneously sought and granted in Mabaso’s absence.
Court overturns property execution order
The court also set aside the order granted on June 19, 2025, which authorised the execution of Mabaso’s property.
The judge found that the order could not stand for two reasons: it relied on the R269,448 judgment that had been rescinded, and the application served on Mabaso did not notify her that the body corporate would also seek execution under a separate judgment.
The separate judgment, for R408,172.35, had been granted against Mabaso on October 14, 2024. The execution order also referred to exclusive-use parking areas that were not included in the relief communicated to her.
The body corporate admitted that the incorrect application for execution had been served.
Judge Opperman said references to the broader relief in an accompanying affidavit did not cure the failure to give Mabaso proper notice of what would ultimately be sought from the court.
The judge emphasised that the right to a hearing includes the right to fair notice of the case a person must answer and the relief being sought.
Mabaso’s decision not to oppose the narrower application could not be treated as a decision not to oppose substantially broader relief of which she had not been properly notified.
The body corporate asked the court to preserve part of the execution order while removing the additional monetary component. However, the judge rejected this proposal, finding that the decision to declare residential property executable involved an integrated judicial assessment.
The entire June 2025 order was therefore set aside, including any writ issued and any execution steps taken under it.
Separate R408,000 debt remains unaffected
The judgment does not mean that the separate R408,172.35 judgment against Mabaso has been overturned.
Judge Opperman expressly stated that the rescission order did not invalidate or determine the validity of that separate judgment. The body corporate remains entitled to pursue lawful remedies under it, provided it complies with the applicable rules and gives proper notice.
The court also considered the parties’ conduct when deciding who should pay the legal costs.
Although the judge criticised Mabaso’s profane response to an email notifying her of the execution proceedings and noted the delay in bringing her application, these issues did not cause the failures in service or the use of the incorrect execution papers.
The body corporate had continued with the proceedings despite acknowledging that the summons might not have reached Mabaso and that the wrong application had been served.
Judge Opperman ordered each party to pay its own costs of the rescission application. The costs associated with condoning the body corporate’s late answering affidavit were to be costs in the cause.
The court accordingly rescinded the R269,448 default judgment granted in August 2024 and the execution order granted in June 2025, while leaving the separate R408,172.35 judgment untouched.