Sandhurst Towers owner wins reprieve as court sets aside R269,448 default judgment

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 execution against the owner's residential property, after finding the proceedings had been affected by serious procedural failures.

The case involved N Mabaso, who asked the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to rescind two orders obtained by the Body Corporate of Sandhurst Towers. The first, granted by the registrar on 15 August 2024, required her to pay R269,448 plus interest and costs. The second, granted on 19 June 2025, authorised execution of her sectional-title unit and her share in the common property.

Mabaso said she never received the summons. The sheriff recorded that it was served at her unit on 24 July 2024 on A Padayachee, the building manager, who was not her tenant, relative or employee but worked for the body corporate itself. The unit was vacant at the time, and the body corporate could not show that its own procedures for holding legal documents delivered to vacant units, and attaching them to the door if uncollected, had been followed. It searched for the summons, could not find it, and conceded that Mabaso might never have received it.

The execution order was set aside on two grounds: it relied on the rescinded R269,448 judgment, and the application served on Mabaso did not notify her that the body corporate would also seek execution under a separate judgment for R408,172.35 granted on 14 October 2024. The order also referred to exclusive-use parking areas not included in the relief communicated to her, and the body corporate admitted the incorrect execution application had been served. The judge held that the right to a hearing includes the right to fair notice of the case to be answered and the relief sought.

The court rejected the body corporate's request to preserve part of the execution order, finding that declaring residential property executable involves an integrated judicial assessment, and set aside the entire June 2025 order, including any writ issued and steps taken under it. The separate R408,172.35 judgment was not overturned, and the body corporate remains entitled to pursue lawful remedies under it provided it follows the rules and gives proper notice. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the rescission application.