Case Law[2025] ZAGPPHC 31South Africa
Nedbank Ltd v Kanyane (2024-094818) [2025] ZAGPPHC 31 (23 January 2025)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
23 January 2025
Headnotes
judgment was called before me in the unopposed motion court, the respondent appeared in person and informed me that he, as a layperson, could not present an affidavit to resist summary judgment. He, however, mentioned from the bar that the vehicle that is the subject of the litigation is in a state of disrepair at a workshop that has been there for some time and is in the process of being repaired at his expense (paid by his insurer) at the instance of the plaintiff and
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 31
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Nedbank Ltd v Kanyane (2024-094818) [2025] ZAGPPHC 31 (23 January 2025)
Nedbank Ltd v Kanyane (2024-094818) [2025] ZAGPPHC 31 (23 January 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_31.html
sino date 23 January 2025
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case
Number: 2024-094818
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
DATE:
23 January 2025
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
NEDBANK
LTD
Plaintiff
and
MATISIMELE
ALBERT KANYANE
Defendant
JUDGMENT
JACOBS AJ
[1]
When this application for summary judgment
was called before me in the unopposed motion court, the respondent
appeared in person
and informed me that he, as a layperson, could not
present an affidavit to resist summary judgment. He, however,
mentioned
from the bar that the vehicle that is the subject of the
litigation is in a state of disrepair at a workshop that has been
there
for some time and is in the process of being repaired at his
expense (paid by his insurer) at the instance of the plaintiff and
that he has paid some instalments to the plaintiff while the vehicle
has been under repair. What I have been told from the
bar by
the defendant has not been pleaded by him. (He is the author of
his pleadings and was not represented by an attorney
at the time).
[2]
The chronology gleaned from the record
shows that:
2.1.
The defendant’s special plea and plea
over on the merits were served on the plaintiff on 25 October 2024
(CL:A38);
2.2.
The application for summary judgment was
served on the defendant by email on Wednesday, 8 January 2025
(CL:29), and by the Sheriff
personally on 14 November 2024 (CL:32).
[3]
Application for summary judgment is,
therefore, properly before me. When the defendant informed me
from the bar as summarised
above and while comparing what he said to
what is contained in his special plea and plea over on the merits and
while mindful of
the provisions of Rule 32, I hold the view that as
his pleadings currently stand, what he told me if testified to on
oath, would
not “disclose fully the nature and grounds”
of his pleaded defence and the material facts he relies on have not
been
pleaded at all. See Rule 32(3)(b).
[4]
Under the circumstances of the case, I
believe that to ensure that the plaintiff is not denied the
opportunity to obtain summary
judgment and the defendant is not
denied the opportunity to present his defence and the material facts
he relies on, the matter
should be postponed on the terms set out in
the order below, and time frames within which the defendant can
exercise his rights
should be provided.
[5]
The following order is made:
a.
The application for summary judgment is
postponed to the unopposed roll of 27 February 2025;
b.
The costs of 22 January 2025 are reserved;
c.
The defendant is afforded until 12h00 on
Friday, 14 February 2025, to file an amended plea and an affidavit in
terms of Rule 32(3)(b);
and
d.
The Registrar and the plaintiff’s
attorney of record are directed to email a copy of this judgment to
the defendant at his
email address immediately and to upload proof of
transmission of such email onto the Caselines platform.
JACOBS H F, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
FOR
THE PLAINTIFF:
Adv
GJ Lötter
Email:
gjl@lawcircle.co.za
VEZI
& DE BEER INC
Email:
gerhardt@vezidebeer.co.za
FOR
THE DEFENDANT:
IN
PERSON
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Nedbank Limited v Maluleke (031621-2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1136 (20 October 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1136High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Nedbank Limited v Mwanza and Another (26647/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1135 (26 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1135High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Nedbank Limited v Civil Home Construction Group CC and Others (004671/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 578 (6 June 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 578High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Nedbank Limited v Pheto (43927/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1162 (6 September 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1162High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Nedbank Limited v Merisma Trading Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Others (B1842/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1186 (18 November 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1186High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar