Homeowners facing foreclosure may have gained a stronger layer of constitutional protection after the Mpumalanga High Court delivered a strongly worded judgment criticising the growing use of “drive-by”, desktop, and inaccessible-property valuations in applications to sell homes in execution.
In Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Gutu and Another, delivered on 11 May 2026, Acting Judge HF Fourie removed three applications from the roll after finding that the valuation material placed before the Court was not reliable enough to support reserve prices and, in several instances, failed to meet the standards required for valuation reports and sworn affidavits.
The cases involved unopposed applications brought under Rule 46A of the Uniform Rules of Court, where financial institutions sought authority to execute against residential properties.
Although the homeowners did not oppose the applications, Fourie AJ said that did not reduce the Court’s responsibility to test the evidence placed before it.
The judgment focuses on a practice that many distressed homeowners may not realise plays a major role in foreclosure proceedings: the valuation used to help determine the reserve price at which a home may ultimately be sold.
Fourie AJ said courts are increasingly being asked to rely on reports based on so-called “drive-by” or “digital evaluations”, or reports stating that access to a property could not be obtained, while still providing detailed descriptions of interiors and finishes.
That approach drew some of the strongest criticism in the judgment.
“When a valuator inserts, with great particularity, details on aspects such as the aforesaid, it provides a certain perception that those elements were indeed valued by the valuator and the Court can accept them as true. In actual fact, those valuations are speculative in nature and do not aid the Court in coming to an ultimate decision,” Fourie AJ wrote.
The Court said that where reports fail to explain what attempts were made to gain access to a property, it may conclude that no serious attempt was made and treat the valuation as “speculation on a possible value for the property”.
For homeowners, the issue goes beyond paperwork. Fourie AJ linked the quality of valuation evidence directly to the Court’s constitutional oversight role and the need to prevent homes from being sold in execution at unjustifiably reduced values.
The judge added that “generic lip service and non-compliant papers and supporting documentation are not an acceptable measure of proving one’s case”.
Why the Court stepped in
The judgment brought together three foreclosure applications involving residential properties in Mpumalanga. All sought reserve prices and execution orders.
Fourie AJ said matters of this nature appear regularly on motion court rolls and observed that courts are often presented with standardised papers and brief references to valuation figures before being asked to authorise sales in execution.
That, according to the judgment, is not what Rule 46A requires.
Fourie AJ referred to earlier case law emphasising that execution against residential property requires judicial oversight informed by fairness, constitutional considerations, and reliable evidence. Courts are expected to engage with the facts before deciding how a judgment should be enforced.
The judgment notes that if evidence cannot be accepted, courts are left to speculate about what outcome would be fair between the parties – something Fourie AJ said courts should not do.
What the court had to decide
The cases were not about whether borrowers had defaulted or whether lenders are entitled to enforce mortgage agreements.
The question before the Court was narrower but important: had the applicants provided valuation evidence that allowed the Court to determine fair reserve prices before authorising sales in execution?
Fourie AJ said valuation reports play a central role because judges cannot inspect every property themselves and must rely on independent experts to assess market value and condition. Without that evidence, reserve prices risk becoming estimates rather than informed judicial decisions.
The judgment notes that properly conducted valuations help to protect against homes being sold at unjustifiably reduced prices and reduce the risk of unfair prejudice to homeowners.
For that reason, Fourie AJ confined the judgment largely to valuation reports, valuators’ affidavits, and the way those documents had been prepared and commissioned.
What the Court found
Across the three matters, the applicants relied on valuation material that included reports prepared without access to properties, desktop evaluations, and affidavits that the Court found did not comply with required standards.
Fourie AJ accepted that there may be cases where physical attendance is not possible.
But he said those circumstances require detail – what attempts were made, how access was refused, and why the valuation should still be accepted.
Instead, the Court found repeated examples of reports referring to inaccessible properties while still recording room counts, bathrooms, and detailed interior finishes.
Fourie AJ wrote: “If it is not seriously evident from the report or affidavit by the valuator which attempts have been made to gain access to the property, and in what way the valuator was prohibited from gaining such access, I find no reason not to accept that no serious attempt was made by such a valuator…”
He added that under those circumstances, the Court should not accept the valuation as “anything else than speculation on a possible value for the property”.
In the Standard Bank matter, Fourie highlighted inconsistencies in valuation affidavits, unexplained signature dates, electronically generated signatures, unchanged reports over long periods, and irregular commissioning processes. At one point, the Court remarked that the chronology reflected in the documents meant parts of the certification process could not have occurred as recorded.
In the FirstRand matter, Fourie AJ criticised reliance on surrounding properties rather than the property itself.
“The Court cannot be expected to place a value on a property solely based on other properties in the area. It is not the other properties in the area that are to be sold, it is this specific property.”
Fourie’s conclusions
Fourie AJ treated the problems as more than technical defects.
He said the deficiencies pointed to continued non-compliance in the way valuation reports and supporting affidavits were being prepared and placed before the Court.
The judgment also turned to costs.
Fourie AJ expressed concern that repeated postponements, replacement valuations, and procedural failures often end up increasing the debt ultimately carried by homeowners.
“Erroneous litigation or erroneous procedures followed by an Applicant cannot form part of the costs levied against a consumer in default,” the judgment states.
The Court said where non-compliance results from the conduct of applicants, those costs should not find their way back onto consumers’ accounts.
Fourie AJ also emphasised that although courts may accept substantial compliance in some circumstances, that should not become standard practice.
“Substantial compliance ought not to be the norm; full compliance ought to be the norm.”
The Court removed all three matters from the roll, allowed the applicants to file new valuations under oath, barred the matters from returning to court until comprehensive valuations had been completed, and directed that wasted postponement costs may not be charged to respondents.
Fourie AJ also ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Council of Property Valuers.
Constitutional oversight in foreclosure matters
Speaking on CapeTalk, Willie Roos, chief executive of Stratafin, described the ruling as a significant reaffirmation of the courts’ constitutional oversight role in foreclosure proceedings.
“The Court specifically says to us we have to look if there are proper, reliable, sworn valuations as evidence for the court to use to make judgments of this nature,” Roos said.
Roos explained that desktop valuations have increasingly become common where valuers struggle to gain physical access to properties. In those cases, valuers may rely largely on deeds office information and area-based data instead of physically inspecting the property itself.
That, however, creates significant risks because those valuations may fail to account for the actual condition, features, or specific attributes of the home being sold.
“What we have seen in the industry is then valuators make use of what is called the desktop valuation,” Roos said.
“That then gives us a valuation by area, and then that is applied to that specific property, so not necessarily taking into consideration the specific attributes of that particular property.”
Roos said the judgment reinforces the constitutional responsibility placed on courts when authorising the sale of homes in execution.
“When a property is sold at auction in execution, they have to then determine a fair price to ensure that the person whose property is being sold is sold at a price that is reasonable,” he said.
He added that courts must also ensure homeowners are not left carrying unnecessarily large residual debts because their homes were sold at artificially low auction prices.
What the judgment means for homeowners
Roos emphasised that the ruling does not prevent banks from selling homes where borrowers have defaulted on their obligations.
“It does not mean that your property can’t be sold,” he said.
But, according to Roos, the judgment confirms that foreclosure processes remain subject to constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight.
“This is the constitutional moment for every homeowner,” he said.
“There will be oversight by the courts, where the courts will say, well, we have to look at evidence that is reliable for us to make this decision when we want to sell your property in execution.”
Roos noted that reserve prices already play an important role in preventing properties from being sold at unreasonably low prices during sheriff auctions.
“We, as a business, see that on a daily basis; that the courts actually say we require a reserve price of X, and if it is not met, then there’s a no-bid, no-sale situation,” he said.
At the same time, he acknowledged that many distressed homeowners still believe their homes are sold far below fair market value.
Roos explained that courts consider multiple factors when setting reserve prices, including outstanding municipal rates, taxes, and body corporate levies that purchasers become liable for after transfer.
Pressure shifts back onto banks and valuers
Roos said the judgment places a clear responsibility on banks and legal practitioners to ensure valuations are properly conducted, independently verified, and supported by sworn evidence before approaching the courts.
“It definitely requires banks to not just treat the valuation as a tick-box exercise,” he said.
According to Roos, valuers must have personal knowledge of the property, explain their methodology properly, and provide current valuations supported under oath.
“So, what it does do, it places the constitutional burden on the court or the right on the court to then have oversight over this when the proper evidence is placed in front of the court,” he said.
Roos described the ruling as an important constitutional judgment protecting homeowners against unjustified infringements of property rights.
“As a constitutional democracy, we don’t want an infringement on people’s rights without oversight,” he said. “Definitely a good judgment.”
