ABSA Home Loan Guarantee Company (Rf) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mokoena and Another (2023/126073) [2025] ZAGPJHC 809 (15 August 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 809 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## ABSA Home Loan Guarantee Company (Rf) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mokoena and Another (2023/126073) [2025] ZAGPJHC 809 (15 August 2025) ABSA Home Loan Guarantee Company (Rf) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mokoena and Another (2023/126073) [2025] ZAGPJHC 809 (15 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_809.html sino date 15 August 2025 THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case 2023-126073 (1)  REPORTABLE: No (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3)  REVISED: Yes Date:      15 August 2025 In the matter between: ABSA Home Loan Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd ABSA Bank Limited First Applicant Second Applicant and Motlapula Clement Mokoena First Respondent Madeleine Frances Mokoena Second Respondent JUDGMENT DU PLESSIS J # Introduction Introduction [1]  The applicants seek judgment against the first and second respondents, jointly and severally, arising from a loan agreement secured by a mortgage bond over immovable property co-owned by them. The respondents allegedly fell into arrears with their monthly instalments and failed to remedy the default after due demand. The applicants accelerated the debt and seek payment of the outstanding amount together with an order declaring the property specially executable. [2]  The matter was enrolled as a default judgment, but was placed on the summary judgment roll, possibly because the first respondent filed an affidavit in terms of Rule 46A setting out his personal and financial circumstances for consideration when deciding whether to grant the order. [3]  When the matter was called, there was no appearance for the respondents, and the hearing proceeded in their absence. I understand that my registrar received a call after the hearing, that the first respondent had been in the wrong court. [4]  I am aware that this sequence of events raises a concern about fairness, but the point is ultimately moot in light of my decision on service upon the second respondent. I had to reserve judgment because the internet in court was not working properly, requiring me to ensure that I was satisfied with service on the second respondent once I had sight of the documents again. After perusing the file, I am not satisfied that there was proper service on the second respondent, for the  reasons set out here below. [5]  While a substituted service order was granted, it authorised service at the first respondent’s address and email, and via a cellular phone number that looks remarkably similar to that of the first respondent on the debt review application, except for the third digit. This order was granted on 23 May 2024. [6]  The papers suggest that the parties are currently separated. In those circumstances, the bank bears a heightened responsibility to ensure that the second respondent, as a co-owner and co-debtor, is personally aware of the proceedings should she wish to intervene. [7]  Given the joint nature of the debt and ownership, it would not be appropriate to make an order only against the first respondent without the second respondent having had an opportunity to be heard. [8]  In the circumstances, the matter is removed from the roll. It can only be re-enrolled on the correct roll once the second respondent has been properly served. ## Order Order [9]  The following order is made: 1.  The matter is removed from the roll. WJ du Plessis Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg Date of hearing: 13 August 2025 Date of judgment: 15 August 2025 For the applicant: Mr Bava instructed by Lowndes Dlamini Attorneys For the respondents: No appearance sino noindex make_database footer start