THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case No: 683/07

MURRAY ROYCE CAMPBELL
Appellant

and

WARREN BOTHA
1st Respondent
CINDY CLAIRE BOTHA
2nd Respondent
MICHELLE LYNNE BOTHA
3rd Respondent
PHILLIPA ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
4th Respondent
AMOERÉ HELEN NEL
5th Respondent
SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT OF HUMANSDORP
6th Respondent
KOUGA MUNICIPALITY
7th Respondent
SA HOME LOANS GUARANTEE TRUST
8th Respondent
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, CAPE TOWN
9th Respondent

Neutral citation:
Campbell v Botha (683/07) [2008] ZASCA 126 (30 September 2008)

Coram:
STREICHER, MTHIYANE, HEHER, MLAMBO JJA and LEACH
AJA

Heard:
8 SEPTEMBER 2008

Delivered:
30 SEPTEMBER 2008

Summary:
Sale in execution – s 70 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 32 of 1944 –
there can be no sale in execution without a judgment and an
attachment in execution of that judgment.

_______________________________________________________________

ORDER
_______________________________________________________________

On appeal from: High Court, South Eastern Cape (Froneman J sitting as
court of first instance)
The appeal succeeds with costs.
The order by the court a quo is substituted with the following order:

‘1
It is declared that

(a)
The applicant is the owner of Erf 1115 Sea Vista, in the Kouga
Municipality, Division of Humansdorp, Eatern Cape Province.
(b)
The applicant never lost his ownership of the erf pursuant to the
sale of the erf by the sixth respondent to the fifth respondent.

The other relief claimed by the applicant stands over for later
determination.

The first, second, third and fifth respondents are ordered to pay the costs
incurred in respect of the relief granted.’
____________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
____________________________________________________________

STREICHER JA (MTHIYANE, HEHER, MLAMBO JJA and LEACH AJA
concurring)

[1] The appellant applied to the Eastern Cape High Court for an order
declaring that he is the owner of Erf 1115 Sea Vista situated in the Kouga
Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province (‘the property’) and for certain
ancillary relief. The court a quo dismissed the application but granted the
appellant leave to appeal to this court.

[2] The appellant was born on 1 January 1980. On 30 September 1998
he, assisted by his father and natural guardian, purchased the property for a
purchase price of R20 000. The property was transferred to him on 29
December 1998. At all relevant times he made use of his father’s postal
address namely P O Box 5015, Helderberg, 7135. However, as a result of a
mistake either on the part of the conveyancing attorney or the Kouga
Municipality (the seventh respondent) his address came to be incorrectly
recorded in the records of the Municipality as P O Box 5012, Helderberg,
7135. He failed to pay the rates payable in respect of the property and on
12 June 2000 the Kouga Municipality issued summons in the Humansdorp
Magistrate’s Court against him for payment of an amount of R3 311,91
being due in respect of outstanding rates plus interest. At that time he was
still a minor but the Kouga Municipality failed to cite him as being assisted
by his father. It cited him as ‘M R Campbell, an adult male of whom
further particulars are to the plaintiff unknown of P O Box 5012,
Helderberg, 7135’. An attempted service of the summons by mail was
unsuccessful as a result of which the Kouga Municipality obtained the
leave of the court to effect service by way of publication of a notice of the
proceedings in the Cape Argus newspaper. The notice was published in the
Cape Argus but did not come to the attention of the appellant or his father.
No appearance to defend was entered as a result of which a judgment by
default was granted to the Kouga Municipality on 19 October 2000. At that
time the appellant was still a minor.

[3] A warrant of execution against the property was thereafter issued and
on 23 November 2000 the court granted leave to the Kouga Municipality to
serve the warrant of execution by one placement thereof in the Cape Argus.
However, there is no record that service of the warrant was effected in
terms of the court order. On 30 March 2001 the sheriff for the district of

Humansdorp, sold the property at an auction which purported to be a sale
in execution.

[4] A professional assistant in the employ of the appellant’s attorneys,
Ms Vreugde, undertook a search in the microfilm records of the National
Library of South Africa at Cape Town. She stated that she examined every
edition of the Cape Argus published during the period 14 November 2000
to 30 March 2001 and established that the warrant of execution had never
been published. All that had been published was the court order authorising
service of the warrant by way of publication thereof in the Cape Argus.
That publication took place on 2 February 2001. It would seem that, by
mistake, the court order was published and not the warrant. Another
indication that the warrant had not been published is the fact that Mr Nel,
the attorney of the Kouga Municipality at the time when the warrant should
have been published, produced copies of the advertisement of the sale in
the Government Gazette and in the Herald newspaper but could not do so
in respect of the advertisement of the warrant.

[5] Nel simply denied that the warrant had not been published. He stated
that Mr Coetzee who was the sheriff at the time was a meticulous sheriff
who ensured that every procedure was followed prior to a sale in execution;
that the records on microfilm may not be complete; and that Vreugde may
have missed the particular advertisement. The respondents also filed an
affidavit by Coetzee in which he stated that he had been a sheriff for 39
years and that in all those years not a single sale in execution that he had
arranged had been set aside on the basis that he had not followed the
correct procedures. Prior to each sale he meticulously went through each
and every notice and judicial document pertaining to the sale so as to insure
that the procedures had been followed properly. I do not think that these

averments are sufficient to create a dispute of fact. The microfilm records
of the National Library are available for inspection. In addition, hard copies
of the Cape Argus are kept by the National Library as well as by the
University of Cape Town. Had the Kouga Municipality and its attorney Nel
considered it possible either that the microfilm records were not complete
or that Vreugde failed to conduct a proper search, they should have
investigated the matter themselves as they had been invited to do. It is not
good enough to say that the records may be incomplete or that Vreugde
may not have searched properly or that Coetzee was meticulous. Even
meticulous people make mistakes. For these reasons I am satisfied that the
appellant established that the warrant had not been published.

[6] Nel’s wife, the fifth respondent, bought the property at the auction
for an amount of R3 500 and sold it on 6 November 2002 to the fourth
respondent for R20 000. The fourth respondent had a dwelling constructed
on the property and on 11 February 2004 she sold it at a price of R560 000
to the third respondent. The third respondent in turn effected certain
improvements on the property for a total amount of R552 016,94 and on 23
March 2006 she sold an undivided third share in the property to the first
and second respondents jointly. The first, second and third respondents
thereupon caused a mortgage bond to be registered over the property in
favour of the eighth respondent to secure a loan that had been granted to
them.

[7] During or about July 2004 the appellant discovered that he was no
longer the registered owner of the property. On 16 February 2005 he
launched an application for the rescission of the judgment against him. The
application was dismissed but an appeal against such dismissal was upheld
on the ground that the judgment was void ab origine on account of the

appellant’s lack of capacity to be sued. The appellant then paid the amount
claimed in the proceedings whereupon the Kouga Municipality withdrew
the action against him and tendered a refund of the amount paid. The tender
was not accepted by the appellant.

[8] Relying on these facts and tendering to pay to the first, second and
third respondents or to such of the respondents as may satisfy the court that
they are entitled to it, the difference between the value of the property with
improvements and the value of the property without improvements, the
appellant applied for orders declaring that he is the owner of the property
and that he never lost his ownership of the property pursuant to the
purported sale in execution. He submitted that there could not have been a
valid sale in execution as there was no valid judgment in existence and as
there had not been an attachment of the property.

[9] Section 70 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 provides:
‘A sale in execution by the messenger shall not, in the case of movable property after
delivery thereof or in the case of immovable property after registration of transfer, be
liable to be impeached as against a purchaser  in good faith and without notice of any
defect.’
The respondents submitted that the sale was protected by the section as the
fifth respondent as purchaser had acted in good faith and without notice of
any defect.

[10] The judge a quo said ‘that the purpose of section 70 would be
undermined if courts are too easily disposed to find that irregularities in the
execution process leads to the conclusion that a sale in execution was a
“nullity”’. He held that at the time of the purported sale in execution there
was ‘an actual court judgment in existence which was only set aside in
November 2005’ and added that he was ‘not aware of authority for the

proposition that once immovable property has been transferred under a
sale of execution the sale can be set aside upon the basis only of the
rescission of the original judgment’. He further assumed that only the order
granting leave to publish the warrant of execution had actually been
published in the Cape Argus and not the warrant itself but held that the
failure to publish the warrant was not ‘an irregularity of such a nature to
invalidate the sale in execution’. Referring to the fact that the publication of
the summons and the judgment had not elicited any response from the
applicant or his father and that notice of the sale was published in the
Government Gazette and the Eastern Province Herald prior to the sale, he
concluded that the sheriff substantially complied with what was formally
required of him.

[11] In terms of s 70 a sale in execution of immovable property may not
be impeached after registration of transfer as against a purchaser in good
faith and without notice of any defect. Section 66 provides that when a
court gives judgment for the payment of money such judgment, in case of
failure to pay such money forthwith shall be enforceable by execution
against immovable property if there is not found sufficient movable
property to satisfy the judgment. Such execution is to be effected by an
attachment of the immovable property and a sale of the attached property in
execution.1 It follows that there can be no sale in execution without a
judgment and an attachment in execution of that judgment.2 See in this
regard Reid and another v Godart and another 1938 AD 511 where De
Villiers JA said at 514:
‘[T]he word “execution” means, as it seems to me, “carrying out” of or “giving effect,”
to the judgment, in the manner provided by law; for example, . . . by a levy under a writ
of execution.’

1 Rule 43.
2 The same view is expressed in Joosub v J I Case SA (Pty) Ltd and others 1992 (2) SA 665 (N) at 673C.

Referring to this passage Friedman JP said in Jones and others v Trust
Bank of Africa Ltd and others 1993 (4) SA 415 (C) at 419G-H:
‘What is protected by s 70 is a “sale in execution”. A sale in execution is one which
follows upon a judgment of the court. The section, which was held in Sookdeyi’s case to
codify the common law, does not, in my judgment, protect a sale which does not follow
upon a judgment of the court.’3

[12] In Menqa and another v Markom and others 2008 (2) SA 120 (SCA)
this court had to consider the ambit of the section. A judgment had been
granted against Markom and pursuant to that judgment his property was
attached in terms of a warrant of execution and sold by the sheriff at a sale
which was conducted as a sale in execution of that judgment. On appeal
this court upheld the finding of the court of first instance that the warrant of
execution was invalid in that it had been issued by the clerk of the
magistrate’s court without judicial supervision as is required in terms of
s 66(1)(a) as amended by the constitutional court in Jaftha v Schoeman and
others; Van Rooyen v Stoltz and others 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC).4 In the
judgment of the majority the absence of judicial supervision imperilled
Markom’s constitutional rights under s 26(1) of the Constitution and
rendered the sale to Menqa invalid. Van Heerden JA said that to hold that
the provisions of s 70 rendered such a sale unimpeachable would defeat the
purpose of the constitutional ruling in Jaftha.5 In a minority judgment
Cloete JA, with whom Scott JA concurred, agreed with these findings of
the majority but considered it desirable to analyse the meaning of s 70 and
provide a rational basis for its interpretation.6

3 See also Maharaj Brothers v Pieterse Bros Construction (Pty) Ltd and another 1961 (2) SA 232 (N) at
238.
4 Menqa paras [15] and [28].
5 At paras [21].
6 At para [28].

[13] Having referred to Roman-Dutch authors Cloete JA disagreed with
passage in Sookdeyi and others v Sahadeo and others 1952 (4) SA 568 (A)
at 572D-E where Van Den Heever JA said in respect of s 70:
‘Had the section not contained the words “in good faith and without notice of any
defect”, a sale in execution by the messenger would after delivery or transfer have been
absolutely unassailable.’
He did so in the following terms:7
‘These dicta cannot be supported to the extent that they suggest that s 70 limits the
circumstances under which a sale in execution in a magistrates’ court can be impugned,
after delivery of movables or transfer of immovables, to the two cases mentioned in the
section.’
I do not consider it necessary to express a view on the correctness of Cloete
JA’s view. Van den Heever JA did not say that absent a judgment and a
attachment, a sale would be unassailable had the purchaser acted bona fide
and without notice of any defect. He was referring to a sale in execution
and not to a purported sale in execution. As stated above, a sale in
execution, in the present context, is a sale following upon a judgment and
an attachment in execution of that judgment. Without a judgment and an
attachment in execution of that judgment there can be no sale in execution.

[14] The judgment which gave rise to the sale in Sookdeyi was a
judgment against minors unassisted by a guardian. A minor has no locus
standi in judicio with the result that the judgment was void.8 However, the
judgment in fact existed and was treated as a judgment which could form
the basis of a sale in execution entitled to the protection afforded by s 70.

[15] In the present case the judgment that gave rise to the sale of the
property was similarly a judgment against a minor unassisted by a guardian
and therefore void. But, as in the case of Sookdeyi, the court a quo held that

7 At 140A-B.
8 Boberg’s Law of Persons and the Family 2 ed p 906.

the judgment did in fact exist at the time when the sale took place and that
that judgment, which was rescinded only after the sale, could form the
basis of a sale in execution entitled to the protection of s 70.

[16] To treat such a judgment as one that can form the basis of a sale in
execution protected by s 70 would seem to be at odds with the following
statement by Innes CJ in Lewis & Marks v Middel 1904 TS 291 at 303:
‘[T]he authorities are quite clear that where legal proceedings are initiated against a
party, and he is not cited to appear, they are null and void; and upon proof of invalidity
the decision may be disregarded, in the same way as a decision given without
jurisdiction, without the necessity of a formal order setting it aside (Voet, 2, 4, 14, and
66; 49, 8, 1 and 3; . . ..’
Voet 49:8:3 says:
‘But by the customs of today such over stressful and pettifogging discussion on fine
points of law as to whether a decision is ipso jure void, or holds good by strict law and
must be set aside through the remedy of an appeal, has been as far as possible abolished.
The ruling has rather prevailed that decisions are never annulled under cover of nullity
without appealing. There are exceptions when the nullity arises from a lack of
jurisdiction, or of summons or of an attorney’s mandate, . . . .’
And Voet 2:4:66 says:
‘Summons to law moreover, either verbal or physical, is the beginning of the institution
of all actions; and if it is left out none of the succeeding steps can hold good. The result
is that a judgment pronounced gains no force even in favour of the person who has not
been summoned and for that reason does not appear.’

But then dealing with the fact that a judgment in favour of a minor
unassisted by his guardian is valid and enforceable against the other party,
stated that ‘in that case the needful constituent and foundation of the
judicial proceeding was not wanting; for even minors, when they better
their condition, have a lawful persona standi in judicio without a
curator . . .’.

[17] Cloete JA9 is of the view that Van Den Heever JA’s statement is
obiter but, in the light of the conclusion to which I have come in respect of
the attachment of the property, I do not consider it necessary to determine
whether that is in fact so or to determine whether Van den Heever JA was
correct in considering a judgment against a minor unassisted by a guardian
to be a judgment that could form the basis of a valid sale in execution. In
this regard it should be pointed out that it was apparently not argued in
Sookdeyi that the judgment could not have formed the basis of a valid sale
in execution. It would seem that the sole issue before the court was
concerned with the incidence of the burden of proof in respect of the bona
fides or knowledge of the purchaser at the sale in question.10

[18] An attachment is effected by way of a notice by the sheriff served
together with a copy of the warrant of execution upon the execution debtor
as owner, upon the registrar of deeds, upon all registered holders of bonds
registered against the property, if the property is in the occupation of some
person other than the execution debtor, also upon such occupier and upon
the local authority in whose area the property is situated.11 Whatever the
position may be if service is not effected on any of the other interested
persons there can, in my view, never be said to have been an attachment
where neither the warrant nor the notice of attachment had been served on
or brought to the notice of the owner.

[19] In the present case neither the warrant nor the notice of attachment
was served on the appellant and he was unaware of the purported sale in
execution. In the circumstances there can be no question of the sheriff
having substantially complied with what was required for an attachment.

9 At 139C-D.
10 Modelay v Zeeman and others 1968 (4) SA 639 (A) at 643D.
11 Rule 43(2)(a).

There had been no compliance at all. The fact that it is unlikely that there
would have been any reaction from the appellant had the warrant been
published in the Cape Argus, as was found by the court a quo to have been
the case, does not assist the respondents either as such unlikelihood cannot
convert a non-attachment into an attachment.

[20] As the property had not been attached in execution of a judgment the
sale that was conducted was not a sale in execution of the judgment and
was therefore not protected by s 70. It was no more than a purported sale in
execution. Not having attached the property, the sheriff had no authority to
conduct a sale thereof and to transfer the property to the purchaser. As was
said by Maasdorp JA in Rossouw and Steenkamp v Dawson 1920 AD 173
at 180:
‘The Sheriff acting without authority is in no different position to any other person
acting without authority in selling the property of a person who has not authorised such
sale.’
It follows that the appellant remained the owner of the property.

[21] The parties were in agreement that if we came to this conclusion a
declaratory order in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the notice of motion should
be made and that the other relief claimed should stand over for later
determination. In the result the following order is made:
The appeal succeeds with costs.
The order by the court a quo is substituted with the following order:

‘1
It is declared that

(a)
The applicant is the owner of Erf 1115 Sea Vista, in the Kouga
Municipality, Division of Humansdorp, Eatern Cape Province.
(b)
The applicant never lost his ownership of the erf pursuant to the
sale of the erf by the sixth respondent to the fifth respondent.

The other relief claimed by the applicant stands over for later
determination.

The first, second, third and fifth respondents are ordered to pay the costs
incurred in respect of the relief granted.’

__________________
P E STREICHER
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances:

For Appellant:
S P Rosenberg SC

Instructed by

Lamprecht & Associates, Cape Town

C/o Joubert Galpin & Searle, Port Elizabeth

Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For 1st to 3rd Respondents: B Pretorius

Instructed by

Christo Swanepoel Attorneys, Jeffreys Bay

C/o Jacques du Preez Attorneys, Port Elizabeth

Webbers, Bloemfontein

For 8th Respondent:
W J Roos

Instructed by

Velile Tinto & Associates, Pretoria

C/o Burmeister de Lange, Port Elizabeth

Du Toit Attorneys, Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
30 September 2008
Status:
Immediate

M R CAMPBELL v W BOTHA & OTHERS

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media
and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

* * *

The Supreme Court of Appeal today upheld an appeal against a judgment in the
High Court, South Eastern Cape in terms of which the court a quo dismissed an
application for a declaration that the appellant remained the owner of a property
notwithstanding the sale thereof by the sheriff at a sale which purported to be a
sale in execution.

The SCA held that there had been no attachment in that neither the warrant nor
the notice of attachment had been served on or brought to the notice of the
appellant as owner; that the sale therefore did not qualify as a sale in execution;
and that the sheriff consequently had no authority to sell the property and transfer
ownership of the property to the purchaser. For these reasons the SCA held that
the appellant remained the owner of the property.