A South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, judge has set aside a vehicle repossession order Nedbank obtained, after finding that court papers were allegedly served in the presence of a woman who had been dead for more than a decade.
Acting Judge Karabo Mvubu delivered a stinging judgment against the bank on May 28, rescinding a default judgment that had allowed Nedbank to repossess a 2021 Nissan Navara belonging to Pretoria resident Refilwe Paul Mokhwesana.
Mvubu set aside the order and directed that the vehicle be returned to Mokhwesana and Nedbank pay punitive attorney-and-client costs.
The case started when Nedbank was granted a default judgement in March 2025. The judgment cancelled the instalment sale agreement and allowed the bank to take back the vehicle, claiming Mokhwesana had not made payments.
Mokhwesana subsequently approached the court to seek a rescission of the judgment, contending that he had never received the summons and had become aware of the court order only when the sheriff attached the vehicle.
Nedbank opposed the application and relied on the sheriff’s return of service, which stated that the summons and a notice of mediation had been personally served on Mokhwesana on February 24, 2025. In opposing the application, Nedbank also submitted a confirmatory affidavit from the sheriff stating that Mokhwesana and his wife had both been present when the documents were served.
According to the sheriff’s version, “the applicant, together with his wife, took receipt of the combined summons and the notice of mediation”. The affidavit further claimed that Mokhwesana and his wife “verbally confirmed” his identity before service was effected.
That version collapsed when Mokhwesana filed a replying affidavit.
“I deny that I was personally served with the combined summons or the notice of mediation,” he told the court adding: “The sheriff’s return of service and confirmatory affidavit are incorrect.”
Then came the critical sentence: “The first respondent alleges that I was with my wife when I received personal service of the summons, which averment cannot be truthful because my wife died in 2014.” A death certificate was attached to the court papers.
The judge noted that the instalment sale agreement concluded between Nedbank and Mokhwesana also recorded him as a widower. Mvubu found the contradiction impossible to reconcile.
“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),” the judge wrote.
The court found that Mokhwesana had produced “clear and satisfactory evidence” that he had not been personally served with the summons and ruled that the judgment had to be rescinded.
However, the judge’s criticism of Nedbank was the most significant aspect of the ruling.
Mvubu said that once the contradiction became apparent, Nedbank could not reasonably continue insisting that proper service had taken place.
The court went further, saying that for Nedbank to maintain the belief it would have to accept the information in its own records that Mokhwesana’s marital status was wrong.
“To harbour such a belief, Nedbank would have to accept that it failed in its Fica verification and that the information they had regarding Mokhwesana was statutorily compliant. No such allegations have been made.”
The judgment reserved particularly strong criticism for the bank’s litigation deponent, who told the court she was fully conversant with the account and supporting documentation.
Mvubu was unconvinced. “The above paragraphs are clearly not correct and amount to misrepresentations, at best.”
He said her claim could not be reconciled with the fact that the bank’s own records described Mokhwesana as a widower while the opposition papers simultaneously relied on an account that placed his wife at the scene.
The judge found that Nedbank should have abandoned its opposition once the explanation from the sheriff emerged.
The court concluded that the bank’s conduct warranted punishment.
“This calls for a punitive cost order,” the judge said before awarding attorney-and-client costs against Nedbank.
In the end, a routine debt recovery case unravelled because of a detail the court could not ignore: a claim that legal papers were served in the presence of a woman who had been dead for 11 years.
- A South Gauteng High Court judge set aside Nedbank's vehicle repossession order after discovering court papers were allegedly served in the presence of a woman who died in 2014.
- The judge rescinded the default judgment that allowed repossession of Refilwe Paul Mokhwesana’s 2021 Nissan Navara, ordering the vehicle returned and Nedbank to pay punitive attorney-and-client costs.
- Mokhwesana denied receiving the summons, with the sheriff’s return claiming service was done personally in front of Mokhwesana and his wife—contradicted by the fact his wife had passed away years earlier.
- The court found Nedbank’s insistence on proper service implausible and criticized the bank for ignoring its own records showing Mokhwesana was a widower, highlighting failures in the bank’s verification process.
- The ruling included strong condemnation of Nedbank’s litigation representative for misrepresentations and deemed the bank’s conduct deserving of punitive costs.
