South Africa Case Law

Nedbank Limited v Ndawala and Others (2022/002174)

Nedbank Limited v Ndawala and Others (2022/002174) [2025] ZAGPJHC 732 (24 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/002174

Judge

JL Bhengu

The court found that the first respondent was indebted to the applicant under the home loan agreement, with arrears exceeding R977,923.49 and no credible payment arrangements made since August 2021. Statutory compliance with the National Credit Act was established. The respondent's claims regarding alternative means of satisfying the debt, such as shares and potential business funding, were unsupported by evidence and lacked credibility. The defences raised, including reckless lending and excessive interest, were contradicted by the respondent's own admissions and the terms of the loan agreem…

Source excerpt

• Execution Against Primary Residence
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Reserve Price Determination
• Judicial Oversight
• Foreclosure
• Contractual Enforcement

Nedbank Limited v Ngcobo (2023/073022)

Nedbank Limited v Ngcobo (2023/073022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 478 (20 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/073022

Judge

Windell

The respondent admits her default under the home loan agreement and has made no meaningful proposal to settle the outstanding debt. Her offer to pay R25 000 per month is inadequate given the extent of the arrears and compounding interest, and undermines her claim of indigence. The constitutional right to housing does not entitle her to indefinite occupation of the property in the face of prolonged non-payment. The section 129 notice was properly served, and the respondent's failure to act upon it is not legally sustainable. The amount claimed exceeds the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Enforcement
• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Rule 46a
• Constitutional Right To Housing

Pinehurst Lodge Body Corporate v Fouche and Others (2024/067958)

Pinehurst Lodge Body Corporate v Fouche and Others (2024/067958) [2025] ZAGPJHC 132 (24 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/067958

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court declined to grant process-in-aid for enforcement of the Magistrates' Court judgment against the respondent's primary residence. The court found that the Magistrates' Court possesses all necessary powers to order and oversee execution against immovable property, including primary residences, and that process-in-aid is only appropriate where the lower court cannot effectively enforce its own judgment. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the Magistrates' Court was institutionally incapable of granting the relief sought, instead merely expressing dissatisfaction with the manne…

Source excerpt

• Process In Aid
• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Nulla Bona Return

Standard Bank of South Africa v Van Nelson and Another (Reasons) (18696/2023)

Standard Bank of South Africa v Van Nelson and Another (Reasons) (18696/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 353; 2025 (3) SA 658 (WCC) (4 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18696/2023

Judge

T J Golden

The court found that the respondents' arrears were negligible, amounting to only 2.8 months, with no history of significant default. The bank failed to demonstrate that all reasonable avenues to satisfy the arrears had been exhausted before seeking execution against the primary residence. The application contained discrepancies regarding service, knowledge of dependents, and payment arrangements. The respondents had made a payment towards the arrears, indicating a potential to cure the default. Granting execution under these circumstances would be disproportionate and iniquitous, especially g…

Source excerpt

• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Uniform Rule 46a
• Proportionality In Foreclosure
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Default Judgment
• Judicial Discretion

Firstrand Bank Limited v Seema (78547/2018)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Seema (78547/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 369 (23 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

78547/2018

Judge

YVAN COERTZEN

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the outstanding balance under the mortgage loan agreement, as the defendant had defaulted on her repayment obligations and failed to rebut the prima facie proof provided by the plaintiff's certificate of balance. The defendant's claim of being under debt review was unsupported, and the relevant account was excluded from debt review proceedings. The court considered all relevant factors under Rule 46A, including the market value of the property, municipal valuations, arrear rates and taxes, and the defendant's financial circumstan…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Debt Review
• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Reserve Price Setting
• Certificate Of Balance
• National Credit Act Compliance

Nedbank Limited v Nkuna (2673/2020)

Nedbank Limited v Nkuna (2673/2020) [2023] ZAMPMHC 39 (30 October 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2673/2020

Judge

Vukeya

The High Court dismissed Nedbank’s application to declare the respondent’s primary residence executable, finding execution was not shown to be a last resort under Rule 46A.

• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Suretyship
• Duress
• Rule 46a
• Reserve Price Setting
• Rule-46a

Standard Bank of South Africa v Kunene and Another (1897/2011)

Standard Bank of South Africa v Kunene and Another (1897/2011) [2015] ZAGPPHC 384 (5 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

1897/2011

Judge

Dewrance

The High Court granted Standard Bank judgment on a mortgage debt, rejected disability-cover and estoppel defences, and declared the home executable.

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Specific Performance
• Insurance Dispute
• Estoppel
• Quantum Of Debt
• Execution Against Primary Residence

Absa Bank Ltd v Wu and Another (20402/2012)

Absa Bank Ltd v Wu and Another (20402/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 46 (14 March 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20402/2012

Judge

Wepener

The court removed a foreclosure default judgment application from the roll for non-compliance with a binding practice directive requiring personal service.

• Foreclosure
• Personal Service Requirement
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Practice Directive Compliance
• Default Judgment
• Execution Against Primary Residence

ABSA Bank Limited v Wu Chongguang and Another (39305/2013)

ABSA Bank Limited v Wu Chongguang and Another (39305/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 43 (14 March 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

39305/2013

Judge

Wepener

The High Court removed a foreclosure application from the roll for failing to comply with a practice directive requiring personal service on the consumer.

• Foreclosure
• Personal Service Requirement
• Practice Directive Compliance
• Constitutional Right To Housing
• Default Judgment
• Execution Against Primary Residence

Firstrand Bank Ltd v Mdila and Another (149/2012)

Firstrand Bank Ltd v Mdila and Another (149/2012) [2012] ZAECGHC 23 (3 May 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

149/2012

Judge

L D Kemp

The court found that the respondents had failed to make the payments required under both the original loan agreement and the debt review order. Their explanations and evidence did not amount to a bona fide defence to the applicant's claim. The respondents' circumstances, while unfortunate, did not justify withholding summary judgment or refusing to declare the property executable, especially as they failed to provide sufficient detail regarding their financial position or prospects. The court held that the applicant was entitled to enforce its rights, including execution against the property,…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Debt Review National Credit Act
• Summary Judgment
• Execution Against Primary Residence