In a dramatic twist of fate, Prenash Somlal, a homeowner who had lost his property due to a default judgment issued against him, emerged victorious as the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria overturned the sale of his home. The case, which pitted Somlal against the might of banking giant Nedbank, is a classic example of David versus Goliath, with the homeowner fighting a legal battle to reclaim his property after the bank miscalculated his debt.
The saga began when Somlal failed to attend court hearings, leading to a default judgment being issued against him. The bank had obtained a court order for the sale of his property, claiming that he owed R124,323.80 in mortgage arrears. The court also set a reserve price of R700,000 for the sale, which was half the value of the property, estimated at R1.4 million. However, Somlal explained that he had been in discussions with the bank about exploring ways to keep his home and was assured that the bank would not proceed with a sale at that stage. Misled by this assurance, Somlal did not attend the hearing, only to find out later that the bank had gone ahead and obtained the sale order.
The key issue in the case centered around the reserve price, which was set based on the bank’s calculation of Somlal’s outstanding debt, including rates and taxes. The bank claimed that Somlal owed R61,076 in municipal levies, but the actual amount reflected on the municipal account was just R1,276. This glaring discrepancy was explained by the bank as a “typing error,” which the judge later described as a “material oversight.” Furthermore, the figures provided by the bank led to an erroneous reserve price being set, which was significantly lower than it should have been.
Somlal had a long history of legal disputes with Nedbank, dating back to 2011, primarily over the accrual of interest on his loan. By 2018, he was told by the bank that a default judgment would be sought against him. However, when the court session arrived, Somlal was reassured by a bank official that the matter would not proceed, prompting him to skip the hearing. This turned out to be a costly misunderstanding, as the court granted the order for sale and the property was auctioned off for the set reserve price of R700,000.
After the sale, Somlal and his elderly mother remained in the property, despite the fact that it was now registered in the name of a new buyer. In his application to have the default judgment rescinded, Somlal argued that the bank had provided incorrect figures to the court, which ultimately led to the wrongful sale of his property. He pointed out that after the default judgment was granted, the bank issued him a statement showing a much lower balance of R94,488, further contradicting the claim that he owed the higher amount.
Judge Nelisa Mali, presiding over the case, found that the default judgment was issued in error. She noted that the discrepancies in the figures and the failure to properly account for the correct debt meant that the court had been misled. “These issues should be ventilated in the appropriate forum,” she remarked, acknowledging the miscarriage of justice caused by the flawed proceedings. Ultimately, the judge ruled in Somlal’s favor, setting aside the default judgment and paving the way for the property’s sale to be overturned.
This case highlights not only the importance of accurate financial information in legal proceedings but also the potential consequences when banks fail to double-check their calculations. Somlal’s persistence in challenging the bank and seeking legal recourse has now paid off, and he has successfully regained control of his home. The court’s decision serves as a reminder that even in the face of large institutions, individuals can still stand up for their rights and seek justice when errors are made.
