Nedbank, one of South Africa’s top-tier financial services groups, has secured a legal victory in a five-year battle to recover a defaulted loan and enforce the sale of a family home linked to South African business owners and trustees of the Magoveni Family Trust, Hlekani Dudu Mukansi and Rhulani Yvonne Mukansi, after the High Court dismissed two applications seeking to overturn an earlier judgment declaring the property executable.

Acting Judge J Mitchell dismissed the consolidated rescission applications brought by Hlekani Dudu Mukansi, Rhulani Yvonne Mukansi, the Magoveni Family Trust and Magoveni Pharmaceutical on November 2, 2026. The court found that the May 2020 judgment against the applicants had not been erroneously granted and that they had been afforded sufficient opportunities to defend themselves.

$315,996 loan secured by Dainfern property

The dispute stems from a R5 million ($303,825) loan advanced by Nedbank in 2005 to the Magoveni Family Trust linked to the couple who have recently made news headlines in South Africa due to a highly publicized, five-year eviction and foreclosure battle over their luxury primary residence in a Randburg golf estate, secured by a mortgage over a residential property in Dainfern Golf Estate, Randburg. The Trust later borrowed an additional R200,000 ($12,153), which was also secured against the property.

Hlekani and Rhulani Mukansi, together with Magoveni Pharmaceutical, signed suretyships guaranteeing the Trust’s obligations. After the borrowers fell behind on repayments, Nedbank launched legal proceedings in August 2019 to recover the outstanding debt and have the property declared specially executable.

In May 2020, the High Court granted summary judgment against the Trust and the other parties, authorising the attachment and sale of the property. The applicants subsequently sought to rescind the order, arguing that their former attorneys had failed to notify them of the resumed hearing and that Nedbank had not complied with requirements under the National Credit Act.

Court rejects borrowers’ challenge to original judgment

Judge Mitchell rejected the applicants’ arguments, finding that Nedbank had properly served its legal documents on their attorneys and that the parties had sufficient opportunities to contest the claim.

The court also dismissed their challenge concerning statutory section 129 notices, ruling that any initial shortcomings in their delivery had been remedied when the notices were attached to the particulars of claim and properly served.

The judge further found that the applicants had unreasonably delayed seeking rescission. Approximately eight months passed between their claimed discovery of the original judgment and the filing of their first application.

Property transferred to new owner in 2021

The property had already been sold at auction and transferred to Thonts Properties in December 2021. The court recognised Thonts Properties as a bona fide purchaser for value, noting that setting aside the original judgment would not automatically reverse the subsequent transfer of ownership.

Judge Mitchell also observed that Nedbank’s recovery efforts had already been considered by approximately ten other judges, remarking that the litigation had lasted long enough.

Occupants ordered to vacate within 30 days

Following the dismissal of both applications, the court ordered Hlekani and Rhulani Mukansi, their family members and anyone occupying the property through them to vacate within 30 days.

The applicants were also ordered to pay the legal costs of Nedbank, Thomas Ntsoane and Thonts Properties jointly and severally, including counsel’s fees on scale B. However, the court declined to impose punitive costs, despite concerns that the prolonged litigation had delayed the eviction and increased expenses for the respondents.