Sithole & Anor v MBCA Bank Ltd. & Anor (HC 1433 of 2017; HH 256 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 256 (26 April 2017)

Sithole & Anor v MBCA Bank Ltd. & Anor (HC 1433 of 2017; HH 256 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 256 (26 April 2017)

The applicants' offer to pay US$1,800 per month over fifty months is not reasonable as it will not clear the debt, which exceeds US$100,000 with interest. The interest alone exceeds the proposed instalment, so suspending the sale serves no real purpose. The requirements of Order 40 r 348A (5e) are not met.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 256
Parties
Applicant: Loth Sithole; Applicant: Alice Sithole; Respondent: MBCA Bank Limited; Respondent: The Sheriff
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
26 April 2017
Case Number
HC 1433 of 2017 ; HH 256 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Chamber Application / Ruling on Application to Suspend/postpone Sale in Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sale in Execution, Suspension of Sale, Reasonableness of Offer, Hardship, Eviction
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Property Law Sale in Execution Suspension of Sale Reasonableness of Offer Hardship Eviction

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loth Sithole

Applicant

Alice Sithole

Applicant

MBCA Bank Limited

Respondent

The Sheriff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Chamber Application / Ruling on Application to Suspend/postpone Sale in Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale in execution of the applicants' only residence should be suspended or postponed under Order 40 r 348A (5a)
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' offer to settle the judgment debt is reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicants will suffer great hardship if evicted

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' offer to pay US$1,800 per month over fifty months is not reasonable as it will not clear the debt, which exceeds US$100,000 with interest. The interest alone exceeds the proposed instalment, so suspending the sale serves no real purpose. The requirements of Order 40 r 348A (5e) are not met.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Applicants to pay the first respondent’s costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.