About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAECBHC 30
|
|
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Tafeni (835/2023) [2024] ZAECBHC 30 (30 August 2024)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
j
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN
CAPE DIVISION – BHISHO)
Reportable
/
Not
Reportable
Case
no.: 835/2023
Matter
heard on: 27 August 2024
Judgment
delivered on: 30 August 2024
In
the matter between:
THE
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
LTD
Plaintiff
and
ANDA
TAFENI
(ID
NO:
7[…])
Defendant
JUDGMENT
BRODY
AJ
1.
This matter came before the court as an unopposed application for
default judgment.
2.
The plaintiff was represented by counsel and when the matter was
originally called
Mr Tafeni appeared on behalf of his wife, the
Defendant, Ms Anda Tafeni.
3.
I explained to Mr Tafeni that it was not competent for him to
represent his wife
as he was not an admitted legal practitioner,
however, he could appoint a legal representative or his wife could
appear in person
to defend the application for default judgment.
4.
The matter stood down and was then recalled at noon of the motion
court day.
5.
When the matter was recalled Ms Tafeni then appeared to represent
herself.
6.
Counsel for the plaintiff indicated that this matter had a long
history and that
although the plaintiff had previously obtained
default judgment, this was abandoned on the 23
rd
of April
2024 to afford the defendant every opportunity to comply with her
legal requirements and to pay the arrear amounts to
the plaintiff.
7.
The present arrears are substantial and indicate a total arrear
amount of R81 443.73
together with a total debt of R125 390.56.
8.
Ms Tafeni argued that the plaintiff had made a “
mistake
”
in that they have failed to process the debit order in regard to her
account on the 1
st
of the month, however, did this on the
15
th
of the month.
9.
She also alleged that all arrears had been paid on the 15
th
of September 2023, and these were the arrears at that stage.
10.
She did not dispute the present arrears, however, contended that
there was a mistake on
the part of the plaintiff as it operated its
debit order on the 15
th
of the month, and by then, her
monthly income had been spent.
11.
She also indicated that she had appointed Mr van Rensburg, an
attorney in East London, to
represent her, however, he was not
available for the default judgment and proposed that Ms Tafeni
represent herself.
12.
Ms Tafeni also handed in a letter that she had addressed to the
plaintiff on the 20
th
of August 2024 and it is clear from
this letter that the “
error
” contended for was the
main subject of the letter. In the letter she expressed surprise that
she had received a summons and
that she wished to resolve the issue
with the plaintiff. She also alleged in the letter that the arrears
were “
little over R73 000.00”
.
13.
Counsel for the plaintiff indicated that she had taken instructions
and that the plaintiff
was no longer prepared to grant any further
indulgences and that the matter should proceed in terms of the draft
order.
14.
I am of the view that there is no defence raised by the defendant to
the claim, and in particular,
having regard to the terms of the
agreement, and that the argument by Ms Tafeni was essentially that
the plaintiff was at fault
as it caused the debit order to operate
from the 15
th
of each month and not the beginning of the
month. Essentially, she was arguing that by the time the debit order
operated, her monthly
salary had been spent. This is clearly not a
defence to the plaintiff’s claim.
15.
In the result, the following order is granted:
1.
Confirmation of cancellation of the agreement;
2.
An order directing the defendant to restore to the plaintiff
possession of the
goods, being a
2022 Nissan Navara 2.5
DDTI SE D/CP/U
Chassis no: A[…]
Engine no: Y[…]
3.
Retention of all monies paid to the plaintiff by the defendant;
4.
Leave is granted to the plaintiff to apply for:
(a)
Damages, if any, in an amount to be calculated by subtracting the
current market value of
the Goods (as well as a rebate on unearned
finance charges from the balance outstanding if applicable);
(b)
Interest on the said damage on the rate of 15% per annum from 11
October 2023 to date of
payment;
5.
Costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.
B.B.
BRODY
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
for the Plaintiff
: Adv.
Mashiya
Instructed
by
:
Drake
Flemmer & Orsmond Attorneys
Unit
10B Sutton Square
8
Queens Road
KING
WILLIAM’S TOWN
(Ref.:
S Nel/MAT60629/VAF.T17)
The
Defendant
: In
Person
(Mrs Anda Tafeni)