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

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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 602 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Vavi and Another (2022/19070) [2025] ZAGPJHC 602 (17 June 2025) Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Vavi and Another (2022/19070) [2025] ZAGPJHC 602 (17 June 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_602.html sino date 17 June 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) Case no: 2022-19070 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. DATE: 17 June 2025 In the matter between: STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Applicant and ZWELINZIMA JOSEPH VAVI First Respondent NORAH NOLUTHANDO VAVI Second Respondent ##### JUDGMENT JUDGMENT WILSON J: 1 A court asked to authorise foreclosure against a debtor’s primary residence must be satisfied that to do so would be proportionate. Foreclosure is generally proportionate when there is little meaningful prospect of the debt secured against the residence being recovered in some other way, and when the interest of the creditor in obtaining payment outweighs the interest of the debtor in retaining ownership of their home ( Gundwana v Steko Development CC 2011 (3) SA 608 (CC), paragraph 54). 2 The applicant, Standard Bank, seeks a money judgment and leave to execute it against the primary residence of the respondents, the Vavis. The Vavis’ indebtedness arises from a mortgage bond passed over the property, which is an upmarket residence in the Sandton area. The fact that the property is, on the face of it, an expensive dwelling in a well-heeled suburb makes no difference to the fundamental inquiry, but cases in which it would be disproportionate to authorise execution of a proven mortgage debt against such a property are likely to be rare. 3 This is such a case. The Vavis owe around R1.68 million on their bond, and are in arrears to the tune of just over R85 000 – or around four months’ worth of instalments. The arrears were accumulated around three years ago, and since then the Vavis appear to have serviced their bond punctiliously, while taking steps to reduce their arrears from just under R170 000 when the application was instituted to around R85 000 today. The latest home loan statement filed shows around 18 months of apparently perfect adherence to the Vavis’ obligations to pay their monthly instalments. 4 Standard Bank has placed nothing before me that explains why execution against the Vavis’ home is a proportionate means of recovering the arrears. Standard Bank claims over R160 000 in legal costs against the Vavis. It is apparent from the affidavits that Standard Bank has tied the resolution of this dispute to the settlement of those costs. It is at least possible that the Vavis have baulked at paying legal costs of twice the value of their current arrears. It seems to me that the Vavis would be entitled to rehabilitate the loan agreement by paying their arrears and then debating the reasonableness of those costs with Standard Bank as a separate issue (see section 129 (3) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 and my decision in Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Koorbanally [2024] ZAGPJHC 1199 (26 November 2024)), but I cannot say why the arrears have not been settled. 5 Nevertheless, in the absence of more information, I cannot presently conclude that foreclosure against the Vavis’ home is a proportionate means of liquidating their arrears. The application will be postponed sine die . Standard Bank may renew the application if and when it adduces evidence that foreclosure would be proportionate. 6 The application is postponed sine die , with each party paying their own costs. S D J WILSON Judge of the High Court This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email, by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 17 June 2025. HEARD ON:                            12 June 2025 DECIDED ON:                        17 June 2025 For the Applicant:                    T Thobela Instructed by Jason Michael Smith Attorneys Inc For the Respondents:              No appearance sino noindex make_database footer start