South African court rejects Van Houten trust’s appeal bid in Fedbond loan dispute

South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an application by trustees of the Van Houten Properties Trust for leave to appeal a judgment in a loan dispute with Fedbond Nominees, a South African financial services company, part of the Fedgroup Insurance Group, leaving in place orders relating to the trust’s outstanding obligations and secured property.

Judge S D J Wilson also dismissed the respondents’ application to postpone the hearing and ordered them to pay the costs of both applications, including counsel’s costs on scale B.

Court upholds Fedbond’s loan claims

The dispute follows an August 27, 2026 judgment in which the court granted Fedbond relief under several loan agreements entered into on behalf of the trust and declared certain trust-owned property specially executable.

Fedbond had extended loan facilities to the Van Houten Properties Trust over an extended period. The agreements and their alleged breaches were not disputed, with the central issue being whether Mark Van Houten, who signed the agreements on behalf of the trust, had authority to do so.

The trust and its trustees, namely Mark Van Houten, Sandra Van Houten, Tamryn Van Houten and Dylan Van Houten, involved in property and loan-related litigation, argued that the trust deed did not permit a majority of trustees to authorise one trustee to sign resolutions or act alone on behalf of the trust.

Wilson rejected the argument, finding that the trust’s governing arrangements permitted trustees to authorise one or more of their number to sign documents required for transactions connected with the trust’s business.

Trustees’ own documents weakened appeal case

The court also noted that Van Houten had repeatedly warranted in the loan documentation that he was authorised to act for the trust. The other trustees provided no adequate explanation for why he allegedly lacked that authority. The court found that the trustees’ position was undermined by other documents in the record, including surety agreements signed by trustees in support of the trust’s obligations.

A March 2012 resolution signed by all the trustees also authorised Van Houten to represent the trust and sign documentation relating to transactions involving the trust.

Wilson previously found that the denial of Van Houten’s authority was “far-fetched and untenable,” concluding that the trust had failed to establish a defence to Fedbond’s claims.

Postponement bid also rejected

The respondents also sought to postpone the leave-to-appeal hearing to accommodate newly appointed counsel. Wilson rejected the request, noting that the new counsel had only been briefed after the original judgment and that the leave-to-appeal application was only two pages long.

The court further found that postponement would delay Fedbond’s ability to execute its judgment and noted previous delays in the proceedings, including the respondents’ failure to file heads of argument until Fedbond brought an application to compel them.

The September 30, 2026 ruling in Fedbond Nominees and Another v Van Houten N.O. and Others leaves the August judgment in place, including the orders concerning the trust’s loan obligations and specially executable property. The case is before the South Gauteng High Court under case number 144557/2024. The original judgment was delivered by Wilson J on August 27, 2026.