South Africa Case Law

Firstrand Mortgage Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Pretorius (1127/2024)

Firstrand Mortgage Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Pretorius (1127/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 100 (11 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1127/2024

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The plaintiff complied with section 129 of the National Credit Act by delivering the required notice to the defendant's chosen domicilium address via registered mail, as confirmed by the track-and-trace report. The defendant did not formally notify the plaintiff of any change of address in accordance with the agreements. The deponent to the verifying affidavit had sufficient personal knowledge through access to the plaintiff's records. The amount claimed is supported by a certificate of balance, and the defendant's objections regarding legal fees are unfounded as those fees post-date the cert…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act Compliance
• Summary Judgment
• Rule 46a Execution
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Certificate Of Balance
• Constitutional Housing Rights

First Rand Bank Limited v Engelbrecht and Another (010183/2022)

First Rand Bank Limited v Engelbrecht and Another (010183/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 250 (2 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

010183/2022

Judge

Tolmay

The court held that the particulars of claim need only set out the cause of action, and the Rule 46A requirements may be satisfied by a separate application or supporting affidavit. The summary judgment and Rule 46A application were properly brought together, and the defendants did not oppose the Rule 46A application. The alleged payment holiday was not substantiated with sufficient detail and did not constitute a valid pactum de non petendo. The section 129 notice was dispatched to the defendants' nominated address, fulfilling statutory requirements. The defendants failed to demonstrate any…

Source excerpt

• Rule 46a Execution
• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• National Credit Act Section 129
• Pactum De Non Petendo
• Right To Housing

Investec Bank Limited v Litha (2021/11116)

Investec Bank Limited v Litha (2021/11116) [2023] ZAGPJHC 487 (16 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/11116

Judge

R Strydom

High Court judgment granting mortgage enforcement and special execution over a primary residence, with a reserve price and a three-month stay.

• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Rule 46a Procedure
• Right To Adequate Housing
• Judicial Oversight
• Setting Of Reserve Price
• National Credit Act Compliance

Agliotti N.O. and Others v Nedbank Limited and Another (2014/02868)

Agliotti N.O. and Others v Nedbank Limited and Another (2014/02868) [2022] ZAGPJHC 27 (14 January 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/02868

Judge

K.E Matojane

High Court costs ruling on a sale in execution dispute: the court held that the execution creditor’s conduct was not vexatious and declined punitive costs.

• Sale In Execution
• Costs Award
• Rule 46 Compliance
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Sale-in-execution
• Rule-46

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO v Frasenburg (19353/2019)

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO v Frasenburg (19353/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 59; [2020] 4 All SA 87 (WCC) (2 July 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19353/2019

Judge

O L Rogers

The court found that the respondent had no defence on the merits and that the arrears were substantial. However, the respondent possessed an Old Mutual investment maturing in May 2021, which would more than cover the debt. The court held that it would not be just to order execution against the respondent's primary residence when another substantial asset exists to satisfy the debt. The court granted judgment for the money debt, postponed the application for special executability, and permitted the applicant to attach the Old Mutual investment via garnishee order, with restrictions on sale bef…

Source excerpt

• Rule 46a Execution
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Judgment Debt
• Attachment Of Investment
• Residential Property Executability

Chabula v RMB Private Bank and Another (2488/2016)

Chabula v RMB Private Bank and Another (2488/2016) [2020] ZAGPJHC 62 (10 February 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2488/2016

Judge

Senyatsi

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success and no compelling reason to hear the appeal.

• Leave To Appeal Requirements
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Eviction Proceedings
• Rescission Of Judgment
• National Credit Act Section 129
• Leave-to-appeal

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Sneech and Another (12598/2017)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Sneech and Another (12598/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 623 (10 August 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12598/2017

Judge

SA Thobane

The court found that the applicant had established its claim for foreclosure, with the respondents in substantial arrears and unable to meet payment obligations. The respondents' points in limine regarding securitisation and disputes of fact were speculative and unsupported by evidence. The counter-application was dismissed as it involved different parties, had already been adjudicated, and was not suitable for motion proceedings. The respondents failed to place sufficient relevant circumstances before the court to justify refusal of executability, and their claims of prejudice were unsubstan…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Special Executability
• Primary Residence Protection
• Judicial Oversight
• Set Off
• Points In Limine

Moshoeshoe and Another v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Others (40290/12)

Moshoeshoe and Another v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Others (40290/12) [2018] ZAGPJHC 8; [2018] 2 All SA 236 (GJ) (25 January 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

40290/12

Judge

Vally

The High Court rescinded a default rescission order after finding the applicants were not properly served and had shown good cause for late relief.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Condonation
• Sale In Execution
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Rescission-of-judgment

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v van Vuuren and Several Other Matters (32847/2012)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v van Vuuren and Several Other Matters (32847/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 16 (26 February 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

32847/2012

Judge

W Wepener

The court held that compliance with section 129 of the National Credit Act requires proof that the notice was delivered to the correct post office serving the consumer's address and that the consumer was notified of its arrival. Where the track and trace report indicates that the notice was returned to sender or did not reach the consumer, compliance is not established. However, discrepancies between the address and the post office reflected on the track and trace report can be resolved by official letters from the South African Post Office confirming which post office serves the relevant add…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Section 129 Notice
• Proof Of Delivery
• Default Judgment
• Mortgage Foreclosure

Dwenga v First Rand Bank Ltd and Others (EL 298/11, ECD 298/11)

Dwenga v First Rand Bank Ltd and Others (EL 298/11, ECD 298/11) [2011] ZAECELLC 13 (29 November 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL 298/11, ECD 298/11

Judge

B C Hartle

The High Court rescinded a default judgment and set aside a sale in execution after finding the bank’s NCA section 129 notice defective and ineffective.

• National Credit Act Compliance
• Default Judgment Rescission
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• Section 129 Notice
• Reinstatement Of Credit Agreement
• Default-judgment-rescission