Mkhansi and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (A798/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 128 (17 March 2016)

Mkhansi and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (A798/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 128 (17 March 2016)

The court found that the appellants failed to pay the full amount required under the restructured debt order, breaching the terms of the agreement. In accordance with Constitutional Court authority, the respondent was entitled to enforce the loan without further notice upon breach. The appellants did not establish a bona fide defence to the default judgment, and the issue of agency regarding the PDA was not determinative for the outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent, limited to one advocate due to the matter's lack of complexity.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 128
Parties
Appellant: Leavit Tshiketani Mkhansi; Appellant: Bombelani Annegrath Makamu; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2016
Case Number
A798/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent, limited to the costs of one advocate.
Judges
Ismail, Mavundla, Rabie
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Debt Restructuring, Notice Requirements, Right to Housing, Agency Relationship, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Constitutional Law Rescission of Judgment Debt Restructuring Notice Requirements Right to Housing Agency Relationship +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leavit Tshiketani Mkhansi

Appellant

Bombelani Annegrath Makamu

Appellant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants provided sufficient grounds for condonation of their late appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the Payment Distribution Agency (PDA) acts as agent for the consumer or the system.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants paid the full amount required under the restructured debt order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to pay the full amount required under the restructured debt order, breaching the terms of the agreement. In accordance with Constitutional Court authority, the respondent was entitled to enforce the loan without further notice upon breach. The appellants did not establish a bona fide defence to the default judgment, and the issue of agency regarding the PDA was not determinative for the outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent, limited to one advocate due to the matter's lack of complexity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent, limited to the costs of one advocate.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal on a party and party scale, such costs to include the costs of one advocate.