A woman will have a chance to state why she should not be held liable for the monies owed to Nedbank for a vehicle purchased by her late brother.
Nedbank was denied a summary judgment against Thandi Dlamini in the High Court sitting in Pietermaritzburg, and the court has given Dlamini the chance to defend against the action the banks wish to take.
Dlamini argued that she is not in possession of the vehicle - a Hyundai H-1 2.5 CRDI Wagon, which her late brother, Siyabonga Dlamini, bought in 2016 for a principal debt amount of R1 432 049 and still owed an amount at the time of his death.
While her brother’s estate had not been wrapped up yet as an executor had not been appointed after his death in November 2021, Nedbank has sought to recover an amount of R209 152 from Dlamini.
Since Siyabonga’s death, no monthly instalments were made on the vehicle and according to the bank, if the client dies “this constitutes a breach of the contract and justifies inter alia (Nedbank) cancelling the agreement, claiming the return and possession of the vehicle and related relief in respect of any damages that the bank may have sustained”.
Dlamini had lived with her brother “during his lifetime” in Avoca Hills in Durban North.
According to court documents, at the time of Siyabonga’s death Dlamini “obtained possession of the motor vehicle when (he) died and (Dlamini) remains in unlawful possession of the vehicle”.
“Thandi, despite demand, failed and/or refused to return the vehicle to the (bank), or, and in the alternative, the bank pleads that if it is found that Thandi is no longer in possession of the vehicle and/or disposed of the vehicle, the bank alleges that she parted possession with the vehicle with knowledge of the bank’s ownership,” court documents read.
Acting Judge Dennis Davis said: “The manner in which the defence is disclosed leaves a lot to be desired, without doubt those involved in the drafting of Thandi’s papers ought to have disclosed some factual basis for their denial, the rules and precedent are sufficient pointers to that.
“However, it cannot be said that the denial of possession does not raise a defence or a triable issue, but the manner in which it has been ventilated is disappointing. They place their client’s case in jeopardy as a result.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings in her plea and opposing affidavit it does even if it is in the barest of terms disclose a valid or bona fide defence to the claim. Consequently, the bank’s claim must fail and summary judgment is refused.”
Nedbank did not respond to enquiries by deadline on Sunday.
Cape Times