Western Cape High Court orders homeowner to pay Nedbank R1.6 million and authorises property sale.
Image: AI Generated
The Western Cape High Court has granted judgment in favour of Nedbank Ltd, ordering a Cape Town homeowner to pay more than R1.6 million and authorising the sale of his property after he failed to oppose the bank’s application.
Acting Judge Adrian Montzinger ruled against Mandla Stephans, who had defaulted on his home loan repayments and did not file an affidavit to resist summary judgment.
The dispute arose from a home loan agreement concluded in November 2017, under which Nedbank advanced approximately R1.7 million to Stephans to finance a property in Sandown, Cape Town.
Court papers show that Stephans fell significantly behind on his monthly repayments, with the outstanding balance exceeding R2 million by October 2025 and arrears surpassing R500,000 by early 2026. The bank subsequently approached the court seeking payment of over R1,6 together with interest, and an order declaring the property executable.
Although Stephans initially filed a plea after successfully rescinding an earlier default judgment, he failed to take the crucial next step of opposing the summary judgment application under oath and did not appear in court when the matter was heard. This raised the legal question of whether a court must still consider a defendant’s pleaded defences when no opposing affidavit is filed.
Judge Montzinger held that, despite the absence of an affidavit, the court should still consider the contents of the plea, particularly under modern summary judgment rules. However, the court found that Stephans’ plea did not raise any genuine or sustainable defence.
The judge pointed out that Stephans had effectively weakened his own case by admitting the existence of the loan agreement, the registration of the mortgage bond, and that he was in arrears. The remainder of his defence consisted of vague denials and unsubstantiated claims, including a bare allegation that the bank had failed to comply with the National Credit Act, which the court found insufficient to constitute a bona fide defence.
The court also considered whether the property, potentially Stephans’ primary residence, could be sold in execution under Rule 46A, which protects homeowners’ constitutional housing rights. While it was unclear whether Stephans resided at the property, the court proceeded cautiously and treated it as a primary residence.
Even so, the judge found that the debt was substantial, that Stephans had made little effort to repay it, that the bank had attempted to resolve the matter without litigation, and that no alternative means existed to settle the debt. On this basis, the court ruled that execution against the property was justified.
To safeguard against the property being sold at an unreasonably low price, the court set a reserve price of R1.7 million. In determining this amount, the judge considered the property’s market value of R3 million, a forced sale value of R2.4 million, and outstanding levies of nearly R400,000.
The court said the reserve price struck a balance between protecting the homeowner’s equity and enabling the bank to recover a meaningful portion of the debt.
In its final order, the court granted summary judgment against Stephans, directing him to pay over R1,6 plus interest at 10.75%, cover legal costs, and allow the property to be sold in execution. The registrar was also authorised to issue a warrant of attachment to proceed with the sale.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News