Western Cape High Court orders homeowner to pay Nedbank R1.6 million
Western Cape High Court orders homeowner to pay Nedbank R1.6 million and authorises property sale.
Image: Fouzia van der Fort
The Western Cape High Court has ruled in favour of Nedbank Ltd, ordering Cape Town homeowner Mandla Stephans to pay over R1.6 million and authorising the sale of his property after he failed to contest the bank’s application.
Acting Judge Adrian Montzinger found that Stephans, who defaulted on his home loan repayments, did not file an affidavit to resist summary judgment related to a loan agreement from November 2017, in which Nedbank advanced approximately R1.7 million for 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 noted that Stephans weakened his case by admitting the loan agreement, the mortgage bond registration, and his arrears. His defence relied on vague denials and unsubstantiated claims, including a mere allegation of the bank's non-compliance with the National Credit Act, which the court deemed insufficient for 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.