SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number : 033978/24
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/ NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES : YES/ NO
(3) REVISED
SIGNATURE:
DATE: 3/6/25
In the matter between:
THE STANDARD BANK OF SA LIMITED Applicant
(REG. NO.: 1962/000738/06)
and
AMOS JOHNNY DLADLA Respondent
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an opposed application for summary judgment brought by the
Applicant, Standard Bank of South Africa Limited, against the Respondent, Amos
Johnny Dladla. The Applicant seeks confirmation of the cancellation of an instalment
sale agreement concluded between the parties, the return of a motor vehicle which
forms the subject of the agreement, the postponement sine die of the claim for
damages (if any), and an order for costs on the attorney and client scale.
[2] The core issue in dispute is whether the Applicant has complied with the
provisions of sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (“the NCA”),
particularly regarding the delivery and subsequent re -service of the pre -enforcement
notice, and whether the Respondent has disclosed any triable issue which would
justify the refusal of summary judgment.
COMMON CAUSE FACTS :
[3] The following facts are not in dispute between the parties:
[3.1] The identity of the parties and the jurisdiction of this Court;
[3.2] The conclusion of a written instalment sale agreement on 31 July 2019 in
respect of a 2018 Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCI Wildtrak motor vehicle;
[3.3] The Applicant’s compliance with its obligations under the agreement, including
disbursement of the loan amount and delivery of the vehicle to the Respondent;
[3.4] The applicability of the NCA to the instalment sale agreement;
[3.5] That a pre -agreement credit assessment was conducted and the Respondent
was found to qualify;
[3.6] That the Respondent breached the agreement by failing to pay the
instalments, with arrears amounting to R62,448.94 at the time of the issue of
summons; and
[3.7] That the Respondent admits both the breach and the arrears, but disputes
compliance with section 129 of the NCA.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION :
[4] The issues for determination are whether the Applicant has complied with
section 129(1)(a) of the NCA; whether the re -service of the section 129 notice
pursuant to a court order effectively cured any procedural defect arising from the
initial dispatch of the notice; and whether the Respondent has disclosed a bona fide
defence or triable issue warranting refusal of summary judgment.
BACKGROUND :
[5] Pursuant to the conclusion of the instalment sale agreement, the Respondent
took possession of the vehicle. Thereafter, he defaulted on his payment obligations,
which led the Applicant to issue a section 129 notice to the Respondent’s chosen
domicilium address via registered mail.
[6] The Applicant, relying on a track and trace report from the South African Post
Office, was initially under the impression that the notice had been properly delivered.
Upon receipt of the Respondent’s plea disputing receipt and submitting documentary
proof to that effect, the Applicant discovered that the initial delivery information was
inaccurate.
[7] The Applicant then launched an interlocutory application in terms of section
130(4)(b) of the NCA for leave to re -serve the section 129 notice. On 30 July 2024,
this Court granted an order authorising service of the notice via email to the
Respondent’s legal representative. The notice was duly re -served on 1 August 2024.
No response was forthcoming from the Respondent.
APPLICANT’S CASE :
[8] The Applicant contends that it has now complied with the statutory
requirements of the NCA, including taking appropriate steps to remedy any prior
procedural defects. Relying on the decision in Investec Bank Ltd v Ramurunzi [2014]
ZASCA 67, the Applicant submits that non -compliance with section 129 does not
nullify proceedings but merely postpones the right to judgment until compliance is
effected.
[9] The Applicant further contends that the agreement has been validly cancelled,
the breach and arrears are admitted, and no defence to the claim exists. It is
accordingly submitted that summary judgment should be granted.
RESPONDENT’S CASE :
[10] The Respondent’s opposition is based exclusively on the alleged non -
compliance with section 129 of the NCA, and by extension, section 130. He avers
that the initial section 129 notice was delivered to the incorrect post office and
therefore never reached him; that the subsequent re -service was procedurally flawed
and did not comply with applicable practice directives; that the Applicant was
required to withdraw the action before attempting to cure the non -compliance; and
that the failure to comply with section 130 renders the proceedings fatally defective.
The Respondent further denies receipt of the re -served notice and asserts that the
court order authorising such re -service was irregularly obtained.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND DISCUSSION :
[11] Sections 129 and 130 of the NCA require that, before legal proceedings may
be instituted, a credit provider must draw the consumer’s attention to the default and
advise on potential remedies, typically by means of a section 129 notice. Such notice
must be delivered in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of the
consumer.
[12] The Constitutional Court in Sebola v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2012
(5) SA 142 (CC) and Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2014 (3) SA 56
(CC) clarified that while proof of actual receipt of the notice is not required, the credit
provider must show that the notice was sent by registered mail to the correct address
and reached the correct post office. Thereafter, the onus shifts to the consumer to
explain non -receipt.
[13] In the present matter, it is accepted that the initial notice was not delivered to
the correct post office. However, the Applicant took remedial action by approaching
this Court in terms of section 130(4)(b) of the NCA and obtained leave to re -serve
the notice. The re -service was effected in accordance with the terms of the court
order.
[14] The Respondent did not launch any application to challenge the validity of that
court order. Allegations raised at the hearing regarding fraudulent procurement of the
order were not supported by evidence on the papers and are not competent in these
proceedings.
[15] The re -service of the section 129 notice, in accordance with the court order
dated 30 July 2024, constitutes full compliance with the NCA. Any procedural
objections to that process should have been pursued in the proper forum by way of a
rescission or review, which was not done. These objections do not amount to a
substantive defence.
[16] Given the Respondent’s admission of breach, arrears, and the absence of any
alternative remedy or proposal, the Court is satisfied that no triable issue has been
disclosed. The Respondent’s defence is dilatory and does not meet the standard of a
bona fide defence required to resist summary judgment, as set out in Maharaj v
Barclays National Bank Ltd 1976 (1) SA 418 (A).
COSTS :
[17] The Applicant seeks an order for costs on the attorney and client scale. As the
instalment sale agreement does not expressly provide for such a costs scale, and
there is no evidence of conduct justifying a punitive award, the Court is not satisfied
that such a costs order is warranted. Costs will follow the result on a party and party
scale.
ORDER :
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. Summary judgment is granted in favour of the Applicant.
2. The cancellation of the instalment sale agreement concluded between the
parties is confirmed.
3. The Respondent is directed to return to the Applicant the 2018 Ford Ranger
3.2 TDCI Wildtrak P/U motor vehicle bearing engine number S[...] and chassis
number A[...], within ten (10) days of service of this order.
4. The Applicant is entitled to retain all payments made by the Respondent
under the agreement.
5. The Applicant is granted leave to apply for:
5.1 Damages, if any, to be calculated by deducting the market value of the
goods (if returned) or a nil value (if not returned), together with a rebate
on unearned finance charges, if applicable, from the outstanding
balance;
5.2 Interest on such damages at the rate of 13.210% per annum from 28
December 2023 to the date of payment.
6. The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of suit .
L COETZEE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for hand -down is deemed to be the 3 June 2025.
Appearances:
On behalf of the Applicant : Adv. L.A. Pretorius
Instructed by: Vezi & De Beer Inc.
On behalf of the Respondent : Adv. C.N. Mosala
Date heard: 10 March 2025
Date of judgment: 3 June 202 5