Absa Bank Ltd v Mathibela (64774/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1258 (8 December 2017)

Absa Bank Ltd v Mathibela (64774/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1258 (8 December 2017)

The court found that the Plaintiff had incorrectly calculated the arrears by failing to account for a 'holiday period' agreement, resulting in an inflated arrear amount at the time summons was issued. The Defendant's property was accepted as her family home, qualifying for constitutional protection under section 26(3). The Plaintiff failed to make a positive averment that the property was not a home and did not provide sufficient information regarding the impact of execution on the Defendant's housing rights. The court held that, given the relatively low arrears, the Plaintiff's delay in prosecution, and lack of negotiation, it would not be just and equitable to grant the relief sought....

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1258
Parties
Plaintiff: Absa Bank Ltd; Defendant: Pearl Lucy Nomvula Mathibela
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2017
Case Number
64774/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
JFD Brand
Legal Topics
Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Sale in Execution, Section 26 Right to Housing, Arrears Calculation Error, Just and Equitable Relief, Summary Judgment Practice
Civil Procedure Land and Property Constitutional Law Mortgage Bond Enforcement Sale in Execution Section 26 Right to Housing Arrears Calculation Error Just and Equitable Relief +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank Ltd

Plaintiff

Pearl Lucy Nomvula Mathibela

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to payment of the outstanding amount on the mortgage bonds and an order declaring the property specially executable.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's property qualifies for constitutional protection under section 26(3) as her home.
  3. 3 Whether the incorrect calculation of arrears and delay in prosecution affect the justness and equitability of granting the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had incorrectly calculated the arrears by failing to account for a 'holiday period' agreement, resulting in an inflated arrear amount at the time summons was issued. The Defendant's property was accepted as her family home, qualifying for constitutional protection under section 26(3). The Plaintiff failed to make a positive averment that the property was not a home and did not provide sufficient information regarding the impact of execution on the Defendant's housing rights. The court held that, given the relatively low arrears, the Plaintiff's delay in prosecution, and lack of negotiation, it would not be just and equitable to grant the relief sought....

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed, with costs.