FirstRand Bank v Mophuleng and Another (47132/2009) [2013] ZAGPPHC 360 (28 November 2013)

FirstRand Bank v Mophuleng and Another (47132/2009) [2013] ZAGPPHC 360 (28 November 2013)

The court found that the applicant had complied with all procedural requirements for service and notice, including service at the respondents' chosen domicilium and by registered post. The respondents failed to provide any credible evidence that notice was not received. The second respondent's allegations regarding defects in the property were irrelevant to the applicant's claim, as the applicant was merely the lender and not the developer. The respondents had not paid any instalments on the loan and had not offered any defence on the merits. The court was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to execute the judgment against the property and that condonation for the late filing of the...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 360
Parties
Applicant: FirstRand Bank; Respondent: Mondli Lelie Mophuleng; Respondent: Ntombizodwa Anna-Marie
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2013
Case Number
47132/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Execution of Default Judgment and Late Filing of Replying Affidavit
Outcome
Application granted. Applicant authorised to execute judgment against respondents' immovable property. Condonation for late filing of replying affidavit granted.
Judges
Cambanis
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Special Executability, Mortgage Loan Agreement, Warrant of Execution
Civil Procedure Land and Property Default Judgment Special Executability Mortgage Loan Agreement Warrant of Execution

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

Parties

FirstRand Bank

Applicant

Mondli Lelie Mophuleng

Respondent

Ntombizodwa Anna-Marie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Execution of Default Judgment and Late Filing of Replying Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to execute the default judgment against the respondents' immovable property.
  2. 2 Whether the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit should be condoned.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents received proper notice of set down for the hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had complied with all procedural requirements for service and notice, including service at the respondents' chosen domicilium and by registered post. The respondents failed to provide any credible evidence that notice was not received. The second respondent's allegations regarding defects in the property were irrelevant to the applicant's claim, as the applicant was merely the lender and not the developer. The respondents had not paid any instalments on the loan and had not offered any defence on the merits. The court was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to execute the judgment against the property and that condonation for the late filing of the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Applicant authorised to execute judgment against respondents' immovable property. Condonation for late filing of replying affidavit granted.

Orders

  • The applicant is authorised to execute the judgment under case number 47132/09 against the respondents' immovable property, which is also the primary residence and has previously been declared specially executable.
  • The Registrar is authorised in terms of Rule 46 to issue a Warrant of Execution against the respondents' immovable property, to obtain attachment and ultimate sale in execution of the property known as ERF 7838 Cosmo City Extension 6 Township, Registration Division IQ, Province of Gauteng, measuring 388 square...