Gail Roux has been sued by First Rand Bank – demanding repayment of money it claimed to have lent her because she ‘does not do affidavits’ and does not acknowledge the authority of courts.

The Star reports last year the bank instituted legal action against Roux in the Western Cape High Court for the repayment of various sums lent and advanced to her under the conclusion of three credit agreements from 2014 to 2021.

While the amounts due were not mentioned in the latest judgment regarding the matter, the court noted that the amounts claimed fall within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court.

Roux told the court that she has no intention to tender a plea following the bank’s legal action against her.

She instead brought an application to either have the legal proceedings overturned or to have the matter transferred from the High Court to the Wellington Magistrate’s Court, which is close to her home. 

She explained that she is a pensioner, ‘existing’ nearer to the Wellington Magistrate’s Court than to this court.

A transfer of the matter to Wellington will thus save time and costs, especially as the amount of the claim falls within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court.

Acting Judge PS van Zyl said there is merit in these submissions, but the transfer of the action is not solely up to this court, notes the report in The Star.

The judge explained that the Uniform Rules of Court require consent by – and agreement between – the parties. The judge noted that Roux said that she has realised that the action – and, it seems, virtually all aspects of her life – has its origins in a fraud.

‘The exact nature of the defendant’s argument is oblique. One of the elements of the alleged fraud is that she does not recognise her surname, having been foisted upon her at birth by her parents and the government in big brother fashion,’ the judge said.

Roux also cited a variety of case law and extracts from miscellaneous items of legislation (in particular from the US), seemingly sourced from the internet, it was noted.

Van Zyl said Roux was adamant that she does not recognise the jurisdiction of this court, which, according to her, is an administrative tribunal.

She explained that it has not served a judicial function since 1789. She also told the court that it has no jurisdiction over living persons, but only over corporations.

Therefore, she argued, she is in fact not before the court.

Nevertheless, she submitted that this court could set aside the action because she has paid the money now claimed by the bank and does not owe it anything.

‘It seems to me that this is a matter that should properly be dealt with by the defendant in a plea to the action. The action itself is not before me for determination, and the defence raised – that the amount claimed has already been repaid – is a matter for the trial court,’ Van Zyl said in turning down her application.

Full report in The Star

Judgment