MBABANE – The High Court of Eswatini has dismissed an application for summary judgment brought by Mbabane resident Petros Masithela Nxumalo against Standard Bank Eswatini, ruling that the matter involves disputed facts and complex damages claims that can only be determined through a full trial.
In a judgment delivered on 9 June 2026, Justice N.M. Maseko dismissed Nxumalo’s application with costs and granted Standard Bank leave to file a plea. The court further directed that the matter proceed to trial.
Nxumalo is suing the bank for E45.9 million, alleging that it failed to return or provide him with an Old Mutual insurance policy document that had been used as security for a housing loan. He claims the bank’s failure to hand over the document caused him substantial financial and proprietary losses over several years.
The plaintiff, who represented himself throughout the proceedings, argued that after his housing loan was transferred to the former Swaziland Building Society, the bank was under a legal obligation to return the insurance policy. He contends that repeated requests for the document went unanswered, resulting in financial losses that eventually accumulated to more than E45 million.
Standard Bank opposed the application, arguing that the claim did not qualify for summary judgment under Rule 32 of the High Court Rules. The bank maintained that the claim was one for damages, that the amount claimed had not been properly explained or quantified, and that several factual disputes existed between the parties.
The bank further argued that the insurance policy was a contract between Nxumalo and Old Mutual and that he could have obtained a replacement policy directly from the insurer if the original had been misplaced. It denied any responsibility for the losses claimed.
In his judgment, Justice Maseko examined the legal requirements for summary judgment and concluded that Nxumalo’s claim did not fall within any of the four categories recognised under Rule 32. These categories include claims based on liquid documents, liquidated amounts of money, delivery of specified movable property, or ejectment.
The judge found that the plaintiff’s claim was not based on a liquid document and that the E45.9 million claim had not been sufficiently explained or supported by documentary evidence.
“There are so many triable issues,” the court found, noting that the plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated how he calculated the amount claimed.
Justice Maseko cited several Eswatini court decisions emphasising that summary judgment is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted where a plaintiff’s case is beyond dispute and where a defendant has no bona fide defence.
The court accepted Standard Bank’s argument that the matter involved disputes of fact requiring oral evidence, documentary evidence and possible expert testimony. According to the judgment, these issues can only be properly examined during a full trial where witnesses can be cross-examined.
The judge also raised concerns about the plaintiff’s decision to conduct the litigation without legal representation. He noted that civil litigation is governed by complex procedural rules and observed that several documents and notices had been filed irregularly during the proceedings.
Justice Maseko said the court had previously advised Nxumalo to obtain legal representation and that attorneys representing the bank had made similar suggestions. However, the plaintiff elected to continue representing himself.
The court further criticised the state of the pleadings before it, describing the Book of Pleadings as incomplete and noting that documents from an earlier case had been attached without any explanation regarding their relevance to the present proceedings.
As part of the order, the court directed Nxumalo to comply with all procedural requirements governing action proceedings and to prepare a complete Book of Pleadings once the pleadings have closed.
The case will now proceed to a full trial where both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence on the disputed issues, including the circumstances surrounding the insurance policy and the basis of the plaintiff’s multimillion-emalangeni damages claim.
Discussion about this post