THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no 2025-036774
In the matter between:
SB GUARANTEE COMPANY (RF) PROPRIETARY
LIMITED
Plaintiff/Applicant
And
GODSWILL OTITODILICHUKU EHIRIM
Defendant/Respondent
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS J
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff applies for summary judgment and for an order declaring the
defendant’s immovable property (“the property”), specially executable. The property
is the defendant’s home.
[2] The defendant was not legally represented. His father, Mr. VO Ehirim, was
present to help. The documents mention a power of attorney and the defendant’s
health issues. During the hearing, I clarified that generally, laypeople cannot
represent others in court. Nonetheless, recognizing the defendant’s illness and his
father’s intent to assist, I granted Mr. Ehirim a limited exception to speak on his
behalf. His father assured the court he would not seek any fee for his assistance.
(1) REPORTABLE: Yes☐/ No ☒
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Yes☐ / No ☒
(3) REVISED: Yes ☒ / No ☐
Date: 02 September 2026
2
[3] During the hearing, Mr. Ehirim did not persist with the defenses outlined in his
papers. Instead, he simply stated that his goal was to sell the house. I appreciate the
clarity of this stance. This is an important and reasonable issue for the Court to
consider, as a private sale generally provides the owner with a better opportunity to
get a fair price than a sale in execution.
[4] Having reviewed all the documents, it is evident that the core contractual
agreement is not in dispute. The mortgage bond for the plaintiff, the indemnity, the
guarantee provision, and the election to claim the full outstanding debt are common
cause. The defendant’s submissions also do not contest liability. Their main concern
relates to the amount specified on the balance certificate and whether reductions in
the interest rate have been accurately reflected.
[5] The plaintiff presented a certificate of balance showing an outstanding
balance of R1 689 883.46 as of 17 May 2025, with arrears of R285 224.57. To
dispute such a balance, a party must provide facts that establish a genuine basis for
the disagreement . S imply expressing uncertainty about the calculation is
insufficient.
1 The defendant failed to specify a contractual interest rate, identify any
incorrect entries, specify a period during which a wrong rate may have been used, or
state the amount he genuinely believed was due.
[6] The defendant also raised in the affidavit the issue that the summary -
judgment application was filed outside the period specified in Rule 32. The plaintiff's
counsel clarified that the plea was filed on 8 April 2026 and the application was
instituted on 30 April 2026. The relevant timeframe is based on court days, not
calendar days, and by that measure, the application was timely. The additional
references to mediation and the magistrates’ court were not pursued during the
hearing. In any case, they do not constitute a genuine dispute.
[7] Consequently, no valid defence was presented to the plaintiff’s claim.
[7] Consequently, no valid defence was presented to the plaintiff’s claim.
Therefore, summary judgment is warranted.
1 SB Guarantee Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Manzini [2025] ZAGPPHC 599 para 22.
3
[8] Granting summary judgment does not mean the Court should overlook that
the property is the defendant’s home. The Court must carefully evaluate the
implications of executing on the property. The best approach is to allow the
defendant a genuine chance to sell the property voluntarily before any execution
proceeds.
[9] The plaintiff's counsel explained that the defendant can sell the property on
his own through an estate agent or use the plaintiff's 'EasySell” process. In this
process, the plaintiff helps facilitate the sale, including working with estate agents
and managing administration, while the owner stays involved. The plaintiff can also
evaluate whether an offer will cover the outstanding debts and related costs.
[10] While the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and an order declaring the property
as specifically executable, it is suitable, considering that the property is the
defendant’s home and he intends to sell it voluntarily, to delay the execution order for
six months. This delay gives the defendant a fair chance to privately market and sell
the property, either through an estate agent of his choosing or with the plaintiff’s help
through the EasySell process, which could lead to a better outcome than a forced
sale. The plaintiff does not oppose this extension.
[11] The defendant and his father should weigh both options. A voluntary sale
could prevent the disadvantages of an execution sale and might better preserve the
remaining value of the property.
[12] The plaintiff placed before the Court an estimated market value of R1 450
000, a municipal valuation of R1 620 000 and a forced- sale value of R1 020 000.
The plaintiff originally proposed a lower reserve price after deducting outstanding
rates and taxes. In the circumstances of this case, I consider it appropriate to set the
reserve price at the forced- sale value, namely R1 020 000. This will provide a
measure of protection if an execution sale ultimately becomes necessary.
measure of protection if an execution sale ultimately becomes necessary.
[13] Although the mortgage bond provides for costs on the attorney -and-client
scale, I do not consider such an order appropriate in these circumstances. The
defendant is unrepresented and unwell and, through his father, has ultimately
4
indicated a wish to resolve the matter by selling his home. There is no basis at the
hearing before me to award punitive costs. Costs should therefore follow the result
on the ordinary party-and-party scale.
Order
[14] The following order is made:
1. Payment of the sum of R1 670 501.38 (ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED
AND SEVENTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND ONE RAND AND
THIRTY-EIGHT CENTS).
2. Interest on the amount referred to immediately above on R0.00 – R882
000.00 at the rate of 10.790% per annum; and on R882 000.00 – R1 172
0000.00 at the rate of 10.965% per annum, and on R1 172 000.00 –
maximum at the rate of 11.290% per annum, from 19 February 2025 to
date of payment, both dates inclusive.
3. That the immovable property described as –
ERF 8[…] R[…] TOWNSHIP
REGISTRATION DIVISION I.R.
PROVINCE OF GAUTENG
MEASURING 574 (FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR) SQUARE
METRES
HELD BY DEED OF TRANSFER T[…]
SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS THEREIN CONTAINED
(“the Property”)
Is hereby declared executable for the aforesaid amounts.
4. An order authorising the issuing of a writ of execution in terms of Rule 46
as read with Rule 46A of the Uniform Rules of Court, for the attachment of
the Property.
5. That a reserve price be set for the sale of the Property, at a sale in
execution, in the amount of R1 020 000.
6. Costs of suit on the party and party scale, including costs of counsel on
Scale B.
7. The executability of this Order is suspended for a period of 6 (six) months
from the date of this judgment.
5
____________________________
WJ du Plessis
Judge of the High Court, Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
Date of hearing:
2 September 2026
Date of judgment:
2 September 2026
For the applicant:
M Ragoale instructed by Vezi & De Beer
Inc
For the respondent:
Assisted by Mr VO Ehirim