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

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Vavi and Another (2022/19070)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Vavi and Another (2022/19070) [2025] ZAGPJHC 602 (17 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/19070

Judge

S D J Wilson

The High Court postponed a bank’s foreclosure application because it was not satisfied that execution against the respondents’ home was proportionate.

• Foreclosure
• Proportionality In Execution
• Mortgage Arrears
• National Credit Act
• Costs Awards
• Proportionality-in-execution

House of Entertainment and Others v Tuhf Urban Finance (RF) Ltd and Others (2023-102660)

House of Entertainment and Others v Tuhf Urban Finance (RF) Ltd and Others (2023-102660) [2024] ZAGPJHC 189 (28 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-102660

Judge

Moorcroft

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, holding that the applicants had not shown reasonable prospects of success under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.

• Leave To Appeal
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Costs Order
• Superior Courts Act
• Interdict
• Foreclosure

Ramanamane v SB Guarantee (RF) (Pty) Ltd (52853/21)

Ramanamane v SB Guarantee (RF) (Pty) Ltd (52853/21) [2023] ZAGPJHC 592 (29 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

52853/21

Judge

Van Aswegen

Leave to appeal was refused in a foreclosure rescission matter. The court found no basis to disturb the settlement order or treat the applicant's business plan as a defence.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Settlement Agreement
• Foreclosure
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Monetary Judgment
• Rescission-of-judgment

Nedbank Limited v Mohlampe (003488/2022)

Nedbank Limited v Mohlampe (003488/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 258 (7 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

003488/2022

Judge

Fisher

The High Court dismissed Nedbank’s request for substituted service in a Rule 46A foreclosure matter, holding that personal service had not been shown impossible when the application was launched.

• Substituted Service
• Foreclosure
• Rule 46a
• Personal Service Requirement
• Substituted-service
• Rule-46a

South African Human Rights Commission v Standard Bank of South Africa and Others

The High Court does not have a general discretion to refuse to entertain matters within its jurisdiction merely because the Magistrates' Courts also have concurrent jurisdiction. Section 169(1) of the Constitution does not create such a discretion, and the mandatory jurisdiction principle remains subject only to recognised exceptions, including abuse of process and circumstances where a defendant would effectively be denied access to court if forced to litigate in a faraway High Court. The default rule proposed by the SAHRC and the High Court's blanket approach were therefore rejected, althou…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Access to court
• Concurrent jurisdiction
• High court and magistrates' court
• Practice directives
• Abuse of process

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd v Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (IM196Mar22; INT086Aug22)

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd v Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (IM196Mar22; INT086Aug22) [2022] ZACT 40; [2023] 1 CPLR 11 (27 September 2022)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IM196Mar22; INT086Aug22

Judges

A Wessels, M Mazwai, L Mncube

The Competition Tribunal allowed APL Cartons to intervene in a merger case involving Corruseal and Neopak, limiting participation to specified competition issues and confidentiality rules.

• Intermediate Merger
• Scope Of Intervention
• Foreclosure Theory
• Access To Confidential Information
• Market Dynamics
• Procedural Rights

Firstrand Bank Limited v Naidoo and Another (2020/25892)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Naidoo and Another (2020/25892) [2022] ZAGPJHC 766 (19 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/25892

Judge

Flatela

Leave to appeal was refused in a foreclosure and money-judgment matter. The court found no reasonable prospects of success and noted the late, uncondoned appeal.

• Mortgage Loan Agreement
• Leave To Appeal
• Foreclosure
• National Credit Act
• Reserve Price Setting
• Leave-to-appeal

Jagesur and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (45470/2018)

Jagesur and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (45470/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 698 (19 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

45470/2018

Judge

L R Adams

The court found that the reference to the incorrect case number on the draft order was a patent error and ordered its correction under Uniform Rule 42(1)(b). The applicants' rescission application failed both under Rule 42(1)(c) and the common law, as they did not demonstrate a bona fide defence to Nedbank's claim. The applicants were legally represented and consented to the judgment, precluding rescission for want of authority. The payments made by the applicants were insufficient to comply with the debt review order, entitling Nedbank to terminate the debt review and foreclose under the Nat…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 42
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Debt Review
• Foreclosure
• Ostensible Authority
• National Credit Act

Digital Titan (Pty) Ltd v TDE Investments (Pty) Ltd (LM165Jan22)

Digital Titan (Pty) Ltd v TDE Investments (Pty) Ltd (LM165Jan22) [2022] ZACT 27; [2022] 2 CPLR 31 (CT) (18 August 2022)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM165Jan22

Judges

Y Carrim, I Valodia, T Vilakazi

The Competition Tribunal conditionally approved Digital Titan’s acquisition of TDE, after access conditions were agreed to address network-effect and foreclosure concerns.

• Large Merger Review
• Network Effects
• Foreclosure Theory Of Harm
• Public Interest Conditions
• Colocation Services
• Internet Exchange Point Access