Standard Bank of SA Limited v Mkhabela Incorporated and Others (2022-16350) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1241 (16 October 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 1241 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Standard Bank of SA Limited v Mkhabela Incorporated and Others (2022-16350) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1241 (16 October 2023) Standard Bank of SA Limited v Mkhabela Incorporated and Others (2022-16350) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1241 (16 October 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1241.html sino date 16 October 2023 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2022-16350 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED 16/10/23 In the matter between: THE STANDARD BANK OF SA LIMITED APPLICANT and MKHABELA INCORPORATED (Registration No:[…]) 1 ST RESPONDENT ARNOLD MKHABELA (ID. No:[…]) 2 ND RESPONDENT FIKILE PEARL MKHABELA (ID. No:[…]) 3 RD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT WRIGHT J 1.  The applicant bank claims money from the respondents. The first respondent is a firm of attorneys. The second respondent is an attorney and the moving force behind the first respondent. The third respondent is his wife, to whom he is allegedly married in community of property. 2.   The claims relate to money owed to the applicant for a business loan, two luxury vehicles and a credit card. The allegation in the founding affidavit is that the second respondent represented the first respondent in concluding the various agreements. There is no allegation that the third respondent contracted with the applicant. 3.  The defence is that when the parties contracted they did not foresee covid and its consequences, including lockdown. If they had, they would not have contracted on the terms on which they did. The negative effect which covid had on the economy hit the poor. The respondents are poor. The respondents can’t pay because of supervening impossibility. The respondents are entitled to a payment holiday. 4.  Unfortunately, unwarranted, baseless allegations of fraud are made against the deponent for the bank. 5.  There is simply no defence on the vague defences put forward. 6.  There is no case against the third respondent. 7.  The respondents were not in court or represented when the case was called. 8.  Adv Jacobs, for the bank handed up a draft order. ORDER X - GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD  :  16 October 2023 DELIVERED :  16 October 2023 APPEARANCES  : APPLICANT Adv Shaun Jacobs shaun@stupelberman.com 082 889 6472 Instructed by Stupel & Berman Inc Elzaan@stupelberman.co.za 011 074 6944 / 072 707 2880 RESPONDENTS Adv ? Instructed by Mkhabela Attorneys 011 807 6046 ndmochaki@mkhabelainc.co.za / boikanyo@mkhabelainc.co.za phyllis@mkhabelainc.co.za sino noindex make_database footer start