The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has defended a citizen's right to self-representation against Standard Bank.
The case centres on the ownership of a Roodepoort property bonded to Standard Bank as security for a loan. On 20 February 2024, a judge declared the property especially executable, prompting the client to draft an urgent application himself to stay the execution and seek rescission of that order.
In March 2024, the client self-drafted, served and filed what he called an urgent application to stay the execution of, and to rescind, the order. The application is embodied in two affidavits, in which he says that he had no notice of the hearing at which the order was made, and that he had been making substantial payments – totalling some R140 000 – toward the arrears due on the loan agreement since the special execution proceedings were instituted.
In response, Standard Bank moved to strike out his application, citing procedural irregularities under Rule 30 of the Uniform Rules of Court, a regulation that sets out the formal requirements for court documents and procedures. The bank argued that his affidavits failed to include the required notice of motion. During the subsequent hearing in April 2024, he appeared without legal representation, explaining that he had relied on informal advice from a legally-knowledgeable friend.
In delivering his judgment, Judge SD Wilson questioned Standard Bank's failure to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from his procedural oversights. He emphasised that the substantive merits of the client's case deserved proper consideration, rather than dismissal based on technical requirements.
"Lay litigants should not be held to the same standard of accuracy, skill and precision in their presentation," the judgment stated, reinforcing principles previously established by the Constitutional Court.
Judge Wilson ultimately dismissed Standard Bank's attempts to strike out the application and ordered it to bear the costs of the client's preparations.
#Conviction
