Standard Bank of South Africa, one of Africa’s largest and oldest financial services organizations, operating as the main South African banking subsidiary of the Standard Bank Group, has secured another legal victory in its efforts to recover a R3.71 million ($222,641) home loan after the Johannesburg High Court dismissed an application by two borrowers seeking to stop the sale of their residential property in Roodekrans, Johannesburg.

In a judgment delivered on October 30, 2026, Judge MMP Mdalana-Mayisela refused to overturn a May 2023 foreclosure order declaring the property specially executable. The court also ordered Goodenough Sifiso Simelane and Lindiwe Pertunia Simelani to pay the bank’s legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale.

Standard Bank secures foreclosure order

The dispute dates to July 2014, when Standard Bank granted the borrowers a R1.35 million ($80,997) home loan repayable over 30 years, secured by a mortgage bond over their property in Roodekrans Extension 8, Roodepoort.

The borrowers fell into arrears as early as December 2014, prompting prolonged recovery proceedings. On May 8, 2023, the bank obtained judgment for R1.94 million ($116,396), including interest, and secured an order declaring the property executable, with a reserve price of R1.57 million ($94,197).

An auction held on December 8, 2023, failed to attract an offer matching the reserve price, with the highest bid reaching only R890,000 ($53,398). The bank subsequently sought a review of the reserve price, which Carrim AJ reduced to R709,336.05 ($42,559) on July 21, 2025, allowing the property to be sold to the highest bidder if the revised amount was not reached.

Borrowers offer to retain property

The borrowers later approached the High Court seeking to suspend execution of the foreclosure order, remain in the home and pay R200,000 ($12,000) towards their arrears before resuming monthly instalments. They also proposed that the bank proceed with the sale only if they remained in default for more than a month.

They argued that the first applicant had secured employment paying R75,000 ($4,500) gross monthly and could afford to resume repayments. The R200,000 ($12,000) payment, they said, was being held in their attorneys’ trust account.

However, the bank’s certificate of balance showed that the outstanding debt had risen to R3.71 million ($222,593) by June 22, 2026, including arrears of R1.99 million ($119,396). Monthly instalments stood at R32,512.43 ($1,950.68).

Court rejects late application and repayment proposal

Mdalana-Mayisela dismissed the application, finding that the borrowers had waited more than two years after the original foreclosure judgment to challenge the execution order without seeking condonation or providing a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The judge noted that they had known about the proceedings and instructed lawyers in April 2024 to oppose the bank’s application to reconsider the reserve price, but only challenged the original order in August 2025.

The court also found that the proposed R200,000 ($12,000) payment represented only a small portion of the accumulated arrears and did not reinstate the credit agreement under the National Credit Act. Furthermore, the monthly instalment would consume approximately 60% of the first applicant’s stated net salary of R53,883.55 ($3,233), before any additional repayment towards arrears.

Housing rights do not prevent secured debt recovery

The borrowers’ reliance on the constitutional right of access to adequate housing also failed. The court held that this right did not provide an unconditional entitlement to retain a particular property while leaving the secured debt unpaid.

It further noted that the property occupied a 1,000-square-metre erf and had previously been leased out for rental income. The bank’s right to execute against the property had also undergone judicial scrutiny through the original foreclosure proceedings and the subsequent review of the reserve price.

The court refused condonation, dismissed the application to vary the foreclosure order, and directed both borrowers to pay Standard Bank’s legal costs jointly and severally on an attorney-and-client scale.