2
motion court on 3 September 2026. I postponed the application to 1 February
2027, and reserved costs. I indicated at the time I made this order that I would
give my reasons in due course. These are my reasons.
2 On 8 May 2024, the applicant, Business Partners, advanced a business loan
of R1.2 million to the first respondent, IPG. The loan was secured by means
of a suretyship given by the second respondent, Mr. Ngwenya, for IPG’s
performance of its obligations under the loan agreement, and by a suretyship
given by the third respondent, the Obadayo Family Trust, of which Mr.
Ngwenya is a trustee. The Trust also provided a surety bond as security for
the performance of its obligations under the suretyship. The bond was passed
over a property in Witportjie, in which Mr. Ngwenya resides. Mr. Ngwenya
confirmed at the hearing that the Witportjie property is his primary residence.
It is also clear from the papers that Mr. Ngwenya is the sole registered director
of IPG.
3 Also on 8 May 2024, Business Partners advanced a further loan of R150 000
to IPG, apparently to pay for accounting and financial reporting software. That
loan, too, was secured by the suretyships and surety bonds which the second
and third respondents signed.
4 The R1.2 million loan was repayable in 57 monthly instalments of just over
R30 000. The R150 000 loan was repayable in 48 monthly instalments of just
over R3 000. In due course IPG defaulted under both loan agreements.
Business Partners asked me to activate its security by granting a money
judgment for the full amount outstanding under both agreements, and by
granting an order declaring the Witportjie property specially executable. Mr.
3
Ngwenya appeared in person to ask for more time to meet his obligations
under the loan agreements and the suretyships he had agreed to.
5 Ordinarily, I would be disinclined to postpone a matter of this nature without
some assurance that a realistic plan to rehabilitate the debtor’s performance
could be agreed and implemented. In this case, however, I was convinced that
a postponement should be granted.
6 Mr. Ngwenya told me that the surety bond was the sole encumbrance over his
home. The property has a market value of R1.8 million. Mr. Ngwenya is not
presently in a position either to pay the full amount owing on the two loan
agreements for which he stood as surety, or to service the monthly instalments
under those agreements, which together add up to just under R35 000. Mr.
Ngwenya is confident, however, that he could afford to service an ordinary
mortgage bond for an amount equal to his liabilities under the suretyships.
This is because the two loans for which Mr. Ngwenya stood surety are
repayable over periods of between four and five years. An ordinary mortgage
bond, though, would be easier to service, in that payments (albeit at a higher
interest rate) would be spread over 20 years. Mr. Naude, who appeared for
Business Partners, accepted my suggestion that a mortgage bond for the
amounts owed to Business Partners would probably require monthly
payments of around half of what is now due monthly under the loan
agreements in this case.
7 In these circumstances, it seem ed plain to me that execution against Mr
Ngwenya’s home might be avoided if the loans at issue in this case could be
spread over a longer repayment period, or if the amounts due under the