- A Gauteng High Court judge has overturned a default judgment, which had allowed Nedbank to repossess a customer's vehicle.
- The judge decided that the claimed delivery of court papers could not be trusted, as it relied on the presence of a wife who had died in 2014.
- Nedbank was told to return the Nissan Navara and cover all legal costs on a punitive scale.
A judge in the High Court in Johannesburg has ordered Nedbank to return a repossessed Nissan Navara to a customer after finding that the bank's opposition to a rescission application relied on a version of events involving a wife who had died more than a decade earlier.
The dispute centred on a default judgment obtained by Nedbank in March 2025. The order cancelled Refilwe Paul Mokhwesana's vehicle finance agreement, authorised the repossession of his 2021 Nissan Navara and allowed the bank to retain all monies already paid under the agreement.
Mokhwesana later approached the court seeking to have the judgment rescinded. He argued that he had never received the summons and only became aware of the judgment when the sheriff attached his vehicle in April 2025.
Dispute over court papers
Nedbank opposed the application and relied on sheriff's returns stating that the summons and other documents had been personally served on Mokhwesana at his Pretoria home.
The bank also submitted a confirmatory affidavit from the sheriff. According to Nedbank, the sheriff personally served the documents on Mokhwesana while he was with his wife.
Mokhwesana denied receiving the summons. He also pointed out a critical flaw in the version presented to the court. His wife had died in 2014.
To support his version, Mokhwesana attached a death certificate. The instalment sale agreement relied on by Nedbank also recorded him as a widower.
Acting Judge K Mvubu found that these facts could not be reconciled with the sheriff's account. The judge said, "It is not plausible that the sheriff could have served the process personally upon Mokhwesana in the presence of his wife (who died in 2014)."
Judge Mvubu concluded that Mokhwesana had produced clear evidence showing that he had not been personally served with the summons.
Judge criticises Nedbank
The court was also critical of Nedbank's decision to continue opposing the application after being confronted with evidence that Mokhwesana's wife had died years before the alleged service.
Judge Mvubu noted that Nedbank's own records described Mokhwesana as a widower. Despite this, the bank persisted with a version that depended on the presence of his wife when the summons was allegedly delivered.
The judge found that Nedbank could not genuinely have believed that personal service had taken place in the manner described.
According to the judgment, "In light of these facts, Nedbank could not genuinely and seriously have believed that Mokhwesana was personally served."
Judge Mvubu further criticised statements made by a Nedbank employee who claimed to have read and understood all the relevant documentation before opposing the application.
The court found that those assertions could not be reconciled with the information already contained in Nedbank's own records.
Vehicle must be returned
Having found that Mokhwesana had not been properly served with the summons, the court ruled that it was unnecessary to decide whether he was actually in arrears under the finance agreement.
The default judgment was rescinded and set aside. Nedbank was ordered to return the Nissan Navara to Mokhwesana and properly serve the summons if it wished to continue with the litigation.
The bank was also ordered to pay the costs of the application on the attorney-and-client scale.
Judge Mvubu ordered that, "The default judgment granted against Mokhwesana on 25 March 2025 is rescinded and set aside."
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
