Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO v Ramabe (37524/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 504 (18 May 2023)

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO v Ramabe (37524/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 504 (18 May 2023)

The defendant failed to raise any substantive defence to the plaintiff's claim for payment under the loan agreement. The plaintiff proved compliance with section 129 of the National Credit Act by serving the required notice at the defendant's domicilium address, as evidenced by the sheriff's return. The defendant's bare denial of service and reference to COVID-19 measures do not constitute valid defences. The property was mortgaged as security for the debt, and the defendant provided no evidence of sufficient movable assets to satisfy the debt. Given the increasing arrears and lack of equity, it is appropriate to declare the property executable and set a reserve price based on the average...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 504
Parties
Plaintiff: Changing Tides 17 Proprietary Limited N.O.; Defendant: Ramabe, Mashakeng Frans
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Case Number
37524/2020
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of the outstanding loan amount, interest as per the loan agreement, declaration of the property as executable with a reserve price, and costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
RJ Moultrie
Legal Topics
Loan Agreement Breach, National Credit Act Compliance, Summary Judgment, Special Executability, Reserve Price Determination, Enforcement Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Changing Tides 17 Proprietary Limited N.O.

Plaintiff

Ramabe, Mashakeng Frans

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has raised a substantive defence to the plaintiff's claim for payment under the loan agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with section 129 of the National Credit Act regarding service of notice.
  3. 3 Whether the mortgaged property should be declared specially executable and a reserve price set.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to raise any substantive defence to the plaintiff's claim for payment under the loan agreement. The plaintiff proved compliance with section 129 of the National Credit Act by serving the required notice at the defendant's domicilium address, as evidenced by the sheriff's return. The defendant's bare denial of service and reference to COVID-19 measures do not constitute valid defences. The property was mortgaged as security for the debt, and the defendant provided no evidence of sufficient movable assets to satisfy the debt. Given the increasing arrears and lack of equity, it is appropriate to declare the property executable and set a reserve price based on the average...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for payment of the outstanding loan amount, interest as per the loan agreement, declaration of the property as executable with a reserve price, and costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • Payment of R650,223.77 by the defendant to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the above amount at the base rate defined in the loan agreement plus 3.80% per annum, compounded monthly in arrears from 21 October 2020 to date of payment.