Gauteng couple lose bid to stop Standard Bank from selling their Roodepoort home over R3.7 million debt - IOL

Court allows Standard Bank to pursue sale of Gauteng couple’s home over R3.7 million debt

A Gauteng couple have lost their bid to stop Standard Bank from selling their home to recover a mortgage debt exceeding R3.7 million, with the High Court dismissing their application to suspend execution and allow them to resume repayments.

The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed the application by G Simelane and L Simelani, ruling that they had failed to provide a legally valid basis for reopening a final judgment granted against them in May 2023.

Judge Molebogeng Mdalana-Mayisela also ordered the couple to pay the bank's legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale.

In a final judgment, the court found that the couple had brought their application more than two years after the foreclosure judgment, without seeking condonation or explaining the lengthy delay.

The dispute stems from a home loan agreement concluded in July 2014, when Standard Bank lent the couple R1.35 million, repayable over 360 months.

Their property in Roodekrans Extension 8, Roodepoort, was registered as security for the loan.

The couple fell into arrears in December 2014, with the bank's records reflecting prolonged periods without payments and repeated debit order reversals.

By January 2020, their arrears had reached R67,089.43, while the outstanding loan balance stood at R1.93 million.

Standard Bank subsequently instituted legal proceedings and obtained default judgment in May 2023 for R1,936,769.06, with interest.

The court also declared the property specially executable, initially setting a reserve price of R1.57 million.

The bank proceeded with execution against the property, which was attached in June 2023.

At a sale in execution in December that year, the highest bid was R890,000, falling short of the reserve price.

Standard Bank subsequently approached the court to have the reserve price reconsidered.

In July 2025, Carrim AJ lowered the reserve price to R709,336.05 and ordered that the property could be sold to the highest bidder if the reserve price was not achieved.

The couple launched their application to vary the original foreclosure order in August 2025, seeking to suspend execution and remain in the property.

They proposed paying R200,000 towards the arrears, followed by monthly mortgage instalments, and wanted the bank to proceed with execution only if they remained in default for more than a month.

The couple argued that their financial circumstances had improved, with Simelane claiming he had secured employment and could afford the monthly bond instalments.

According to the judgment, the bank's June 2026 certificate of balance reflected an outstanding debt of R3,710,352.09, with arrears of R1,992,508.07.

The monthly instalment was R32,512.43.

However, the judge found that the couple had failed to explain why they waited more than two years before seeking to challenge the foreclosure order.

The application was also accompanied by a replying affidavit delivered more than three months late, without an application for condonation.

“The delay is unreasonable. It is wholly unexplained,” the judge said.

The court found that the couple had brought the application only after the reserve price was lowered and the sale in execution became imminent.

The judge said the couple had admitted the home loan agreement, mortgage bond, default and indebtedness.

Their application was not based on any defect in the original foreclosure order but on their desire to avoid losing the property.

The court found that a subsequent improvement in a debtor's financial circumstances did not invalidate a judgment that had been properly granted.

The judge also rejected the couple's reliance on the National Credit Act, saying they had not tendered payment of the full arrears and enforcement costs required to reinstate the credit agreement.

Their proposed R200,000 payment represented only about 10% of the arrears reflected in the bank's June 2026 statement.

The court said the bank was not obliged to accept partial payment or enter into a repayment arrangement.

The couple also invoked their constitutional right of access to adequate housing, arguing against the loss of their home.

However, the judge said constitutional protections did not give debtors an unconditional right to remain in a particular property while failing to repay a debt secured against it.

The court noted that judicial oversight had already been exercised when the original executability order was granted and when the reserve price was reconsidered.

The judge further described the property as a substantial residential home on a 1,000-square-metre erf, with a reserve price initially set at R1.57 million.

The judgment said the couple could afford more modest alternative accommodation and that their desire to retain the particular property could not justify preventing the bank from enforcing its security.