Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Mafetsa (085443/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1445 (12 December 2023)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 1445 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Mafetsa (085443/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1445 (12 December 2023) Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Mafetsa (085443/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1445 (12 December 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1445.html sino date 12 December 2023 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 NO: 085443/2023 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES NOT REVISED 12/12/23 In the matter between: SANLAM LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED Applicant And LUCAS MAFETSA (IDENTITY NUMBER:[…]) Respondent REASONS MANOIM J: [1] This matter was heard by me on the unopposed roll.  Despite not being opposed by the respondent he has asked for me to give reasons. There was no notice to oppose or answering affidavit filed by the respondent. There was thus on the papers no LIS between the parties and hence no need for me to give reasons. Nevertheless I explain briefly as follows. [2] The case was decided on the basis of the facts set out in the founding affidavit. I had no facts before me to suggest I should consider making any other finding. The application was for the attachment of the respondent’s right, title and interest in his bank accounts. The attachment order sought was for all bank accounts and not limited to the outstanding quantum. The only issue I took up with counsel was to limit the order of attachment to the sum outstanding. This counsel duly did, and the order I signed thus differs from the draft that appears on CaseLines. A copy of the signed order is attached and it will be downloaded on to caselines. N.  MANOIM JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION JOHNANNESBURG Date of Reasons: 12 December 2023 Appearances: Counsel for the Applicant: CJ Bekker Instructed by: Hadar Inc sino noindex make_database footer start