Court Rules Out Affixing Summons to Doors and Gates

The Nedbank recently suffered a setback in the Western Cape High Court, where the court dismissed applications for default judgment in four separate matters involving vehicle finance arrears.

In each case, the bank sought to recover outstanding amounts from vehicle owners after summonses were served by being affixed to doors or gates at the defendants’ chosen domicilium addresses. However, the court held that this manner of service does not meet the legal requirements set out in the amended Uniform Rules of Court.

Background to the cases

According to a report in The Star, one of the matters involved a defendant who had fallen into arrears of more than R75 000 on repayments for a Volkswagen Tiguan. In that case, the Sheriff found the property locked and left the summons affixed to the door. The remaining three matters followed a similar pattern, with no one present at the addresses and the documents left either on a door or gate.

Counsel for the bank argued that service by affixing the summons at the domicilium address constituted effective service in terms of the amended rules.

The court’s findings

The court disagreed. It emphasised that the amended Uniform Rules of Court do not expressly provide for service of a summons by simply affixing it to a door or gate. While the amendment allows a sheriff to leave a copy of the summons at the address if no person is present, the court stressed that this discretion must still be exercised in a manner that ensures proper and effective service.

The court noted that proper service requires more than mere physical placement of documents on a property. It must reasonably ensure that the defendant is formally notified of the proceedings, understands the nature of the claim, and is afforded a fair opportunity to respond before a default judgment is sought.

Importantly, the court held that there was no evidence that the summonses in these matters came to the attention of the defendants. As such, the requirements for valid service had not been met.

Practical implications

As a result, the court dismissed the bank’s applications for default judgment. However, it made clear that nothing prevents the bank from pursuing alternative methods of service that comply with the rules and adequately notify defendants of the proceedings against them.

Why this matters

This judgment highlights the courts’ continued emphasis on fairness and procedural compliance, particularly where default judgments are concerned. Credit providers and litigants alike must ensure that service of legal documents is carried out in a manner that genuinely brings proceedings to the attention of defendants, rather than relying on technical or minimal compliance.

For consumers, the ruling reinforces the principle that they should not be deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves due to inadequate service. For institutions, it serves as a reminder to carefully consider appropriate methods of service before approaching the court for default or summary judgment.