Firstrand Bank Limited v Mokone (24509/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 104 (31 January 2025)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Mokone (24509/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 104 (31 January 2025)

The defendant failed to advance any bona fide or legally sustainable defence to the summary judgment application. His reliance on section 26 of the Constitution was not substantiated by evidence of imminent homelessness or vulnerability, and the facts indicated the property had significant market value. The plaintiff complied with section 129 of the National Credit Act by sending the required notice via registered mail to the defendant's nominated address, with track and trace confirming delivery and notifications. The defendant's mere assertion of non-receipt did not rebut the presumption of delivery, as clarified by the Constitutional Court. Alternative remedies had been exhausted, with...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 104
Parties
Plaintiff: Firstrand Bank Limited; Defendant: Tebogo Batista George Mokone
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Case Number
24509/2022
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Summary Judgment and Rule 46 a Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff; orders for payment, execution, and reserve price issued, with execution suspended for three months.
Judges
Ellis AJ
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Primary Residence Execution, Section 129 Notice, Reserve Price Setting, Constitutional Right to Housing
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Land and Property Summary Judgment Mortgage Bond Enforcement Primary Residence Execution Section 129 Notice 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstrand Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Tebogo Batista George Mokone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has advanced a bona fide and legally valid defence to summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's constitutional right to housing under section 26 is infringed by execution against his primary residence.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff complied with section 129 of the National Credit Act regarding notice to the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to advance any bona fide or legally sustainable defence to the summary judgment application. His reliance on section 26 of the Constitution was not substantiated by evidence of imminent homelessness or vulnerability, and the facts indicated the property had significant market value. The plaintiff complied with section 129 of the National Credit Act by sending the required notice via registered mail to the defendant's nominated address, with track and trace confirming delivery and notifications. The defendant's mere assertion of non-receipt did not rebut the presumption of delivery, as clarified by the Constitutional Court. Alternative remedies had been exhausted, with...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff; orders for payment, execution, and reserve price issued, with execution suspended for three months.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay R2,161,872.42 to the plaintiff.
  • Interest at 8.75% per annum, capitalised monthly in advance, from 20 February 2022 until payment.