Quite why SA Home Loans fought the case is not clear, especially given that there was a clear Constitutional Court judgment in a similar case
It’s not often that the proverbial “little guy” wins against business – particularly when taking on institutions like banks, which are rolling in money to pay lawyers to prove their point.
So, hats off to Durban resident, Valerie Naidoo, for refusing to give up her fight against SA Home Loans (SAHL) for repossessing her house, even though she had brought her mortgage arrears up to date.
ALSO READ: SA homeowners forced to sell within two years of purchase amid rising interest rates
And, not only did SAHL repossess the R800 000 house, they sold it on auction for a pathetic R100 000.
Representing herself in court, Naidoo came up against two, no doubt expensive, advocates arguing SAHL’s case… and beat them.
The judge ruled that SAHL should have reinstated her mortgage agreement when she settled her arrears for the first time in 2009.
And then again when the same thing happened in 2013.
SAHL also wrongly dragged up the summons from 2009 issued against Naidoo, along with an execution order, to repossess the property and sell it.
Quite why SAHL fought the case is not clear, especially given that there was a clear Constitutional Court judgment in a similar case which stated that mortgages are automatically reinstated when arrears are settled.
Now, all they have achieved is to damage their reputation.
ALSO READ: Judge ‘unscrambles’ egg, following R100 sale of property 20 years ago
