2
debtor in retaining ownership of their home (Gundwana v Steko Development
CC 2011 (3) SA 608 (CC), paragraph 54).
2 The applicant, Standard Bank, seeks a money judgment and leave to execute
it against the primary residence of the respondents, the Vavis. The Vavis’ indebtedness arises from a mortgage bond passed over the property, which is an upmarket residence in the Sandton area. The fact that the property is, on the face of it, an expensive dwelling in a well-heeled suburb makes no difference to the fundamental inquiry, but cases in which it would be disproportionate to authorise execution of a proven mortgage debt against
such a property are likely to be rare.
3 This is such a case. The Vavis owe around R1.68 million on their bond, and
are in arrears to the tune of just over R85 000 – or around four months’ worth of instalments. The arrears were accumulated around three years ago, and since then the Vavis appear to have serviced their bond punctiliously , while
taking steps to reduce their arrears from just under R170 000 when the application was instituted to around R85 000 today. The latest home loan
statement filed shows around 18 months of apparently perfect adherence to
the Vavis’ obligations to pay their monthly instalments.
4 Standard Bank has placed nothing before me that explains why execution
against the Vavis’ home is a proportionate means of recovering the arrears. Standard Bank claims over R160 000 in legal costs against the Vavis. It is apparent from the affidavits that Standard Bank has tied the resolution of this dispute to the settlement of those costs. It is at least possible that the Vavis have baulked at paying legal costs of twice the value of their current arrears.