Blue Granite Investments No. 2 (RF) Limited v Steyn and Another (4080/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 214 (15 December 2016)

Blue Granite Investments No. 2 (RF) Limited v Steyn and Another (4080/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 214 (15 December 2016)

The plaintiff failed to clearly prove its entitlement to summary judgment because the certificate of balance relied upon only referred to one account number and did not cover all six loan agreements as claimed. The court was not persuaded that the plaintiff had established the amount due across all relevant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 214
Parties
Plaintiff: Blue Granite Investments No.2 (RF) Limited; Defendant: Barend Hendrik Steyn; Defendant: Antoinette Steyn
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
4080/2016
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposition by First Defendant
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; first defendant granted leave to defend; costs to be in the cause.
Judges
C Reinders
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Certificate of Balance, Mortgage Bond Enforcement, National Credit Act
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Summary Judgment Certificate of Balance Mortgage Bond Enforcement National Credit Act

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Granite Investments No.2 (RF) Limited

Plaintiff

Barend Hendrik Steyn

Defendant

Antoinette Steyn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposition by First Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has clearly established its entitlement to summary judgment for the claimed amount.
  2. 2 Whether the certificate of balance relied upon by the plaintiff correctly reflects the total indebtedness across all relevant loan agreements.
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant has set out facts which, if proved at trial, would constitute a bona fide defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to clearly prove its entitlement to summary judgment because the certificate of balance relied upon only referred to one account number and did not cover all six loan agreements as claimed. The court was not persuaded that the plaintiff had established the amount due across all relevant accounts. The defendant's other defences were not convincing, and there was insufficient information to justify referral to a debt counsellor under section 85 of the National Credit Act. Accordingly, summary judgment was refused and the first defendant was granted leave to defend the action.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; first defendant granted leave to defend; costs to be in the cause.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Leave is granted to the First Defendant to defend the action.