Firstrand Bank Limited v Van Rooyen and Another (4636/2019) [2025] ZAMPMHC 15 (25 March 2025)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Van Rooyen and Another (4636/2019) [2025] ZAMPMHC 15 (25 March 2025)

The court found that the Respondents failed to raise any bona fide defence or triable issue to the Applicant's claim for repayment under the mortgage loan agreement. The only issue pursued by the Respondents was the alleged inclusion of legal costs in the arrears, but the account statements and certificate of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAMPMHC 15
Parties
Applicant: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Quentin Van Rooyen; Respondent: Charne Kotze
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
4636/2019
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Delivery of Plea and Opposing Affidavit
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Applicant against both Respondents for the outstanding amount, interest, and costs; property declared specially executable with a reserve price fixed.
Judges
Langa
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Rule 46a Special Executability, Arrears Calculation, Legal Costs Liability, Certificate of Balance
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Land and Property Summary Judgment Mortgage Bond Enforcement Rule 46a Special Executability Arrears Calculation Legal Costs Liability +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstrand Bank Limited

Applicant

Quentin Van Rooyen

Respondent

Charne Kotze

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Delivery of Plea and Opposing Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents have raised a bona fide defence to the Applicant's claim for repayment under the mortgage loan agreement.
  2. 2 Whether legal costs have been improperly included in the arrears claimed by the Applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the mortgaged property should be declared specially executable and a reserve price fixed under Rule 46A.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondents failed to raise any bona fide defence or triable issue to the Applicant's claim for repayment under the mortgage loan agreement. The only issue pursued by the Respondents was the alleged inclusion of legal costs in the arrears, but the account statements and certificate of balance demonstrated that legal costs were credited and not included in the arrears calculation. The outstanding amount was confirmed by the certificate of balance, and the Respondents' challenge to its verifiability was unsupported by the evidence. The court was satisfied that the Applicant complied with the National Credit Act and that the requirements for summary judgment were...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Applicant against both Respondents for the outstanding amount, interest, and costs; property declared specially executable with a reserve price fixed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is granted against the First and Second Respondents for payment of R334,085.43.
  • Interest on R334,085.43 at the variable rate of 11.25% nominal per annum calculated daily and compounded monthly from 30 June 2024 to date of final payment.