Rossouw v First Rand Bank Limited

The appellants, a married couple, concluded a home loan agreement with First Rand Bank in June 2006 for R1 030 000, secured by a mortgage bond over their immovable property. They fell into arrears in 2008. The bank issued a notice in terms of s 129(1)(a) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA), after which the appellants entered debt counselling and a revised payment plan was agreed to but not honoured. Following continued default, the bank allegedly delivered a further s 129 notice in April 2009 and then issued summons claiming the full outstanding balance and an order declaring the property executable. The appellants defended the action and opposed summary judgment, disputing compliance with the NCA notice requirements, the correctness of the arrears, and contending that s 130(2) of the NCA limited the bank’s claim to the proceeds of execution.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court granting summary judgment was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application for summary judgment with costs.

The case is significant for clarifying that s 130(2) of the National Credit Act does not abolish or limit a mortgagee’s common-law right to claim a shortfall after execution against immovable property. It is also important for its strict interpretation of the notice and delivery requirements under ss 129 and 130 of the NCA, reinforcing consumer protection by requiring proper proof of delivery before debt enforcement.