S.A.M v S.P.M and Others (Reasons) (1288/2021) [2025] ZALMPPHC 206 (27 October 2025)

Case Note

S A M v S P M; ABSA Bank Ltd; Greater Tzaneen Local Municipality, High Court of South Africa (Limpopo Division, Polokwane), Case No. 1288/2021, judgment delivered 27 October 2025 (reasons for an order made on 16 October 2025).

The matter concerned an application by the applicant to be removed from a mortgage bond jointly registered with the first respondent over an immovable property situated at Erf 2[…] Tzaneen Extension 52, alternatively for an order directing the sale of the property to satisfy the outstanding bond and municipal liabilities. The court (Bresler AJ) dismissed the application with costs on the attorney-and-client scale.

The reasons handed down electronically on 27 October 2025 explain the dismissal based on the principles of contractual enforceability, the absence of a pleaded and substantiated case for the alternative relief, and the procedural posture of motion proceedings in the face of factual disputes.

Reportability

This judgment is reportable for its clear affirmation of the central contract-law principle of pacta sunt servanda in the context of mortgage bonds jointly undertaken by parties whose personal relationship has broken down. The court underscores that a party cannot be unilaterally “removed” from a mortgage bond without the creditor’s consent, and that the court will not intervene to relieve an obligor of contractual liability absent proof that the relevant term is contrary to public policy. This is a recurring issue in disputes between former spouses or partners who remain co-obligors under finance agreements post-separation or post-divorce.

It is also significant for its restatement that disproportionality or perceived unfairness, in and of themselves, do not provide a free-standing ground to avoid or refuse enforcement of contractual obligations. The judgment relies on Constitutional Court authority confirming that a court may decline to enforce only where a contractual term or its enforcement would be contrary to public policy, and not merely because it appears harsh or inconvenient to one party.

Finally, the judgment provides important procedural guidance. It reiterates that in motion proceedings an applicant must make out a complete case in the founding affidavit, that courts will not decide materially disputed factual matters on the papers, and that alternative relief such as the judicially ordered sale of co-owned property must be properly pleaded and supported on affidavit. The punitive costs order further underscores the consequences of pursuing fatally flawed relief and failing to comply with procedural obligations such as filing replying papers and timeous heads of argument.

Cases Cited

Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the Time Being of the Oregon Trust and Others 2020 (5) SA 247 (CC).

Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC).

Botha and Another v Rich N.O. and Others 2014 (4) SA 124 (CC).

Legislation Cited

No specific statutory provisions were expressly cited in the judgment. The court’s reasoning proceeded from the common-law principles of contract and public policy as developed by the Constitutional Court.

Rules of Court Cited

No particular rules of court were expressly cited. The court referenced general procedural principles applicable to motion proceedings and the requirement that a case be made out in the founding affidavit.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The applicant sought an order removing him from a mortgage bond jointly registered with the first respondent over immovable property, alternatively directing the sale of the property to settle the bond and municipal arrears. The second respondent bank opposed any release of the applicant from his obligations, pointing out that both co-debtors had assumed contractual liability and that it would not consent to an absolution unless the remaining co-debtor qualified for substitution or novation. The first respondent opposed but did not file heads of argument; the third respondent municipality was cited given its interest in municipal charges.

The court held that the applicant’s attempt to be “removed” from the bond amounted to a unilateral resiling from a valid contract and therefore constituted a repudiation that the bank, as creditor, was entitled to reject. Relying on Constitutional Court authority, the court affirmed that contracts must be enforced unless their terms or enforcement would be contrary to public policy, and that general unfairness or hardship is not a sufficient basis to refuse enforcement.

As to the alternative relief to compel a sale of the property, the court found that no case had been made out in the founding papers. The court also observed that material factual disputes existed regarding the post-divorce arrangements, including indications of a “partnership of sorts,” making the matter ill-suited for determination on motion. The application was dismissed with costs on an attorney-and-client scale due to the fatally flawed case and the applicant’s procedural defaults.

Key Issues

Whether a court can compel the release of a co-mortgagor from a mortgage bond without the creditor’s consent, absent proof that the bond’s terms or their enforcement are contrary to public policy.

Whether the applicant established a proper basis in the founding affidavit for an order directing the sale of the immovable property to satisfy the bond and municipal liabilities.

Whether motion proceedings were appropriate given disputed facts about the parties’ arrangements post-divorce and the absence of a clear settlement agreement dealing with the property.

Held

The court held that the applicant could not unilaterally resile from the mortgage agreement. The second respondent bank was entitled to insist on enforcement of the joint obligations. The principle of pacta sunt servanda applies unless the contractual term or its enforcement is shown to be contrary to public policy, which was not established.

The alternative relief for a sale of the property failed because the applicant did not make out a case for such relief in the founding affidavit, and the material factual disputes rendered motion proceedings inappropriate for resolving issues akin to dissolving a partnership or winding up a shared estate.

The application was dismissed with costs on the attorney-and-client scale due to the defective merits and the applicant’s procedural conduct, including failure to file a replying affidavit and late delivery of heads of argument.

THE FACTS

The applicant and first respondent were previously married in community of property, with their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce in 2012. The record indicates that a settlement agreement was concluded at the time of divorce, but neither party placed its terms before the court, and it was unclear how the joint estate was to be divided. Notably, an immovable property at Erf 2[…] Tzaneen Extension 52 appears to have formed part of the joint estate at the time.

In 2017, a mortgage bond was registered over the property in the names of both the applicant and the first respondent. The second respondent is the bondholder. Thereafter, the relationship between the former spouses deteriorated, and the applicant approached the court seeking to be “removed” from the bond, asserting that continuing liability was untenable given the interpersonal breakdown.

The second respondent opposed the relief, emphasizing that both co-debtors had assumed joint contractual liability and that the bank would not consent to absolution of the applicant unless the remaining co-debtor qualified for substitution and the bank agreed to a novation or release. The first respondent also opposed, albeit without filing heads of argument. The third respondent municipality was cited because the applicant’s amended relief contemplated using sale proceeds to settle municipal accounts.

THE ISSUES

The first question was whether the court could order the applicant’s removal from the mortgage bond, thereby absolving him from liability to the bank, notwithstanding the bank’s opposition and absent proof that any term of the agreement was contrary to public policy. This raised the foundational contract-law principle of the enforceability of freely concluded agreements.

The second question was whether the court should grant the alternative relief of a compelled sale of the property to satisfy the bond debt and municipal liabilities. This engaged the procedural requirement that an applicant must make out a complete case in the founding affidavit and the substantive requirements for ordering the sale of co-owned property or the winding up of a joint venture or partnership arrangement.

A further procedural issue concerned whether motion proceedings were appropriate for resolving disputed factual matters about the parties’ post-divorce arrangements, including what Bresler AJ described as a “partnership of sorts,” given the absence of documentary clarity regarding the divorce settlement and the contested factual matrix.

ANALYSIS

On the primary relief, the court held that the applicant’s approach was “fatally flawed.” Seeking unilateral removal from the mortgage bond amounted to a refusal to perform a central contractual obligation. That is a form of repudiation. The second respondent did not accept the repudiation but elected to enforce the agreement, which it was entitled to do. In South African law, the principle of pacta sunt servanda is firmly entrenched: parties must honor obligations freely and voluntarily assumed, save where enforcement would contravene public policy.

The court relied on Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the Time Being of the Oregon Trust and Others 2020 (5) SA 247 (CC), where the Constitutional Court confirmed that general unfairness, disproportion, or hardship is not an independent ground for refusing to enforce a contract. Courts may refuse enforcement only where the contractual term or its enforcement is so unfair, unreasonable, or unjust as to be contrary to public policy. The court further referenced Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) and Botha and Another v Rich N.O. and Others 2014 (4) SA 124 (CC) as authorities that situate public policy analysis within constitutional values while maintaining the strong presumption in favor of contractual enforcement. In the present case, the applicant did not allege, let alone prove, that any term of the mortgage bond or its enforcement offended public policy. The bank’s refusal to absolve the applicant was therefore unimpeachable.

Turning to the alternative relief, the court emphasized the well-established rule that an applicant must make out its case in the founding affidavit. No pleaded basis was set out for a court-ordered sale of the property, and no supplementary affidavit explained the legal or factual underpinning of such relief or addressed the consequences for co-ownership, liabilities, and distribution of proceeds. Without a properly pleaded case and supporting evidence, the court could not grant so invasive an order, particularly where a creditor’s secured interests and a municipality’s claims may be implicated.

The court also observed that the papers suggested a “partnership of sorts” between the applicant and the first respondent regarding the property and their respective contributions. However, no prayer for dissolution of a partnership or winding up of a partnership estate was properly motivated in the founding papers. The potential terms of such a partnership were disputed. Because application proceedings are not designed to resolve material factual disputes on paper, it would be inappropriate to determine matters akin to dissolution and winding up on the affidavits filed. On these bases, the alternative relief had to fail as well.

REMEDY

The application was dismissed in its entirety. The court had already made this order on 16 October 2025 and provided its reasons on 27 October 2025. The dismissal encompassed both the primary relief to remove the applicant from the mortgage bond and the alternative relief seeking a court-ordered sale of the property.

As to costs, the court ordered the applicant to pay the costs on the attorney-and-client scale. This punitive order was justified by the applicant’s conduct, including failure to file a replying affidavit, failure to deliver heads of argument timeously, and generally persisting with a fatally flawed case. The court found that the respondents should not be left out of pocket in the circumstances and that the elevated scale was warranted to mark the court’s disapproval of the manner in which the litigation was pursued.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment reaffirms the centrality of pacta sunt servanda in South African contract law. Absent evidence that a contractual term or its enforcement is contrary to public policy, courts will not relieve a contracting party from obligations freely undertaken. The mere fact that performance has become inconvenient, onerous, or subjectively unfair to a debtor is not a standalone basis for judicial intervention.

The court underscores that the public policy inquiry, as developed by the Constitutional Court, requires more than assertions of hardship. A party seeking to avoid or qualify enforcement must show that the term or its enforcement would be so unfair, unreasonable, or unjust that it offends public policy grounded in constitutional values. This threshold was not met on the facts before the court.

Procedurally, the judgment restates that in motion proceedings an applicant must make out a complete case in the founding papers. Courts will not grant substantive relief, such as an order compelling the sale of property or the dissolution and winding up of a joint venture or partnership-like arrangement, in the absence of properly pleaded grounds and supporting evidence. Moreover, motion proceedings are generally unsuitable for determining materially disputed facts. Where disputes emerge, especially as to the nature of the parties’ arrangements, the matter may require oral evidence or trial, but a court will not reconstruct a deficient case advanced on affidavit.

Finally, the judgment illustrates the circumstances in which attorney-and-client costs may be awarded. Persisting with untenable relief, neglecting procedural obligations such as filing a replying affidavit or timeous heads, and placing the opposing parties to unnecessary expense justify a punitive costs order to protect the opposing parties and mark judicial displeasure.