Hlabisa and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Another (B1133/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 724 (17 July 2025)

Hlabisa and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Another (B1133/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 724 (17 July 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to a final interdict restraining the sale in execution of their property. Although the applicants paid substantial amounts towards the arrears, they did not pay all amounts due, including monthly instalments following the default judgment, as required to reinstate the credit agreement under section 129(3) of the National Credit Act. The disputed facts regarding the precise arrears and the need for an audit of the account meant that, applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the matter had to be decided in favor of the respondent. The court further noted that the applicants would not suffer irreparable harm, as the reserve price...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 724
Parties
Applicant: Gcina Louis Hlabisa; Applicant: Lesego Janet Hlabisa; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court: Pretoria Southeast
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Case Number
B1133/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Default Judgment and Pending Sale in Execution.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ferreira AJ
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Sale in Execution, Final Interdict, Arrears Reinstatement, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance National Credit Act Sale in Execution Final Interdict Arrears Reinstatement Default Judgment

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

Parties

Gcina Louis Hlabisa

Applicant

Lesego Janet Hlabisa

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Sheriff of the High Court: Pretoria Southeast

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Default Judgment and Pending Sale in Execution.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have paid all arrears and reinstated the credit agreement under section 129(3) of the National Credit Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict restraining the sale in execution of their property.
  3. 3 Whether the credit provider is obliged to notify the consumer of the precise arrears required for reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to a final interdict restraining the sale in execution of their property. Although the applicants paid substantial amounts towards the arrears, they did not pay all amounts due, including monthly instalments following the default judgment, as required to reinstate the credit agreement under section 129(3) of the National Credit Act. The disputed facts regarding the precise arrears and the need for an audit of the account meant that, applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the matter had to be decided in favor of the respondent. The court further noted that the applicants would not suffer irreparable harm, as the reserve price...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved, are ordered to pay the first respondent's costs on a party and party scale with counsel's costs on scale B.