ABSA Bank Limited and Another v Mafahleni Engineers and Projects Managers CC and Another (8149/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 52 (20 May 2025)

ABSA Bank Limited and Another v Mafahleni Engineers and Projects Managers CC and Another (8149/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 52 (20 May 2025)

The respondents admitted liability but disputed the quantum without substantive grounds. The increase in the claimed amount was due to interest and non-payment. No payments were made, and the arrears were not contested. The Help U sell programme does not constitute a defence or suspend legal proceedings. The property is vacant land, not residential, and the outstanding municipal rates are substantial. The respondents failed to raise any bona fide defence to the summary judgment or the Rule 46A application. It is just and equitable to declare the property executable and set a reserve price, considering the valuation and municipal arrears.

Citation
[2025] ZAKZPHC 52
Parties
Applicant: ABSA Bank Limited; Applicant: ABSA Home Loans Guarantee Company (RF) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Mafahleni Engineers and Projects Managers CC; Respondent: Trevor Siza Zuma
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Case Number
8149/2024P
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Rule 46 a Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicants; property declared specially executable with a reserve price.
Judges
P C Bezuidenhout
Legal Topics
Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Suretyship Liability, Rule 46a Executable Property, Reserve Price Setting, Arrears and Interest
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Land and Property Mortgage Bond Enforcement Summary Judgment Suretyship Liability Rule 46a Executable Property Reserve Price Setting +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABSA Bank Limited

Applicant

ABSA Home Loans Guarantee Company (RF) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Mafahleni Engineers and Projects Managers CC

Respondent

Trevor Siza Zuma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Rule 46 a Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to summary judgment against the respondents for the amounts claimed.
  2. 2 Whether the property should be declared specially executable under Rule 46A and a reserve price set.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have raised any bona fide defence to the claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents admitted liability but disputed the quantum without substantive grounds. The increase in the claimed amount was due to interest and non-payment. No payments were made, and the arrears were not contested. The Help U sell programme does not constitute a defence or suspend legal proceedings. The property is vacant land, not residential, and the outstanding municipal rates are substantial. The respondents failed to raise any bona fide defence to the summary judgment or the Rule 46A application. It is just and equitable to declare the property executable and set a reserve price, considering the valuation and municipal arrears.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicants; property declared specially executable with a reserve price.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is granted in favour of the First Plaintiff against the First and Second Defendants, jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved, for payment of R1,249,777.60 (limited to R1,122,000.00 for the second defendant) plus interest at 13% per annum from 5 April 2024 to date of payment.
  • Judgment is granted in favour of the Second Plaintiff against the First Defendant for payment of R1,249,777.60 plus interest at 13% per annum from 5 April 2024 to date of payment.