The Constitutional Court has ruled that banks don't have to take debtors to the Magistrate's Courts for default judgments, reports News24.

They can take their cases straight to the High Court, even if Magistrate's Courts have the jurisdiction to hear their cases.

In a unanimous judgment on Friday, the apex court ruled against the Human Rights Commission's contention that cases should be heard in the Magistrate's Courts because they are more accessible and less cost prohibitive for the public.

In a judgment penned by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, the court rejected the HRC's contention that section 169(1) of the Constitution affords the High Court discretion because the word ‘may’ in that section must cohere with the constitutional sections that confer jurisdiction on the SCA and the Constitutional Court.

The ruling states that the ‘may’ in the sections only indicate that the respective courts are each being afforded power.

‘Additionally, the holding by the SCA in Agri Wire that “our courts are not entitled to decline to hear cases properly brought before them in the exercise of their jurisdiction” remains good law.’

The HRC accused Standard Bank, Nedbank and FNB of avoiding the Magistrate’s Court, which is ‘more accessible than the High Court to impoverished respondents’ in terms of proximity and cost.

The Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) found in favour of the HRC that the High Court was entitled to decline to hear default judgment cases, despite enjoying concurrent jurisdiction with the magistrate's courts on these judgments.

The banks took the ruling on appeal to the SCA, which ruled in their favour.

The case stems from applications by banks to auction the homes of 13 debtors who defaulted while they owed small amounts on their home loans.

The HRC argued that their cases were taken to the High Court even though their debt fell within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Courts.

Full News24 report

Judgment