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 LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: 058795/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE 20/10/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
SA TAXI DEVELOPMENT FINANCE (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
AND
JABULANI NKOSI RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Oosthuizen-Senekal CSP AJ:
Introduction
[1] This is an application for summary judgment brought by the Applicant, SA
Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd, against the Respondent, Mr
Jabulani John Nkosi. The application arises from an instalment sale
agreement relating to a 2023 Toyota Quantum/Hi -Ace 2.5 D -4D 16S
motor vehicle.
[2] The Applicant seeks cancellation of the agreement, return of the
vehicle, postponement of any residual damages claim pending such
return, retention of all monies paid by the Respondent, and costs on the
scale as between attorney and client.
[3] The Respondent has entered an appearance to defend and opposes
summary judgment on several grounds, including non -receipt of a
section 129 notice, denial of a valid cession, and an alleged settlement
agreement. The question before this Court is whether the Respondent
has demonstrated a bona fide defence or a triable issue sufficient to
justify the matter proceeding to trial.
Background
[4] On or about 20 April 2023, at Midrand, the Respondent and Potpale
Investments (RF) (Pty) Ltd (“Potpale”) entered into a written instalment
sale agreement in terms of which Potpale financed the purchase of a
2023 Toyota Quantum/Hi -Ace 2.5 D -4D 16S motor vehicle, engine
number 2[...], chassis number A[...].
[5] The Respondent paid a deposit of R34,300.00 and undertook to repay
the balance in 112 equal monthly instalments of R15,628.48 each,
subject to an interest rate linked to prime. The agreement further
provided that Potpale could, without notice, cede or assign all rights,
title, and interest in the agreement to a third party.
[6] On 13 July 2017, Potpale and the Applicant concluded a cession
agreement in terms of which all rights under the Respondent’s account
were transferred to the Applicant. The Respondent thereafter fell into
arrears with his monthly payments, and as of 18 October 2024, the
arrears stood at R270,347.84.
[7] A notice in terms of section 129(1)(a) of the National Credit Act 34 of
2005 (“the NCA”) was duly dispatched by registered post to the
Respondent’s domicilium address as chosen in the agreement. The
“track-and-trace” record confirmed that the notice reached the relevant
post office.
[8] Following the Respondent’s continued default, the Applicant issued
summons seeking cancellation of the agreement and return of the
vehicle. The Respondent entered an appearance to defend and filed an
opposing affidavit raising various defences.
Submissions by the Applicant
[9] The Applicant contends that all contractual preconditions for
enforcement have been met and that the Respondent’s defences are
contrived and without merit.
[10] It is submitted that the instalment sale agreement was validly concluded
with Potpale, that the subsequent cession in favour of the Applicant was
lawful, and that the Respondent is precluded from challenging its
validity. Relying on Letseng Diamonds Ltd v JCI Ltd and Others 1 and
Corporate Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Dwergieland Kleuterskool CC
1 [2008] ZASCA 157.
and Others2, the Applicant argues that only the contracting parties to a
cession can question its enforceability.
[11] The Applicant maintains that the section 129 notice was properly
dispatched by registered post and that, in terms of Sebola and Others v
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 3 and SA Taxi Development Finance
(Pty) Ltd v Phalafala4, proof of delivery to the correct post office suffices.
[12] It is further submitted that the Respondent’s allegations of a payment
arrangement or settlement are unsupported by documentary evidence
and do not constitute a bona fide defence. The Applicant therefore
prays for summary judgment in accordance with its notice of motion.
Submissions by the Respondent
[13] The Respondent disputes the Applicant’s entitlement to summary
judgment and contends that he has a bona fide defence. He asserts
that the vehicle originally described in the summons did not correspond
with the vehicle he purchased, and that the Applicant only rectified this
after amending its particulars of claim.
[14] He further denies any contractual relationship with Potpale, insisting that
his agreement was concluded with SA Taxi Finance, who has been
debiting his account since inception. He claims to have entered into a
settlement with the Applicant on 1 September 2024, in terms of which
he agreed to pay R5,000 per month towards the arrears but instead
made a lump sum payment of R20,000 covering four months’
2 Unreported Judgment, Full Bench, South Gauteng High Court, Case no A5020/11, 8 December
2011.
3 [2012] ZACC 11.
4 [2013] ZAGPJHC 55.
instalments. He contends that this arrangement was reduced to writing,
signed, and retained by the Applicant, who now refuses to release it.
[15] The Respondent also raises non-compliance with sections 129 and 130
of the NCA. He maintains that the statutory notice was sent to an
incorrect address, 1[...] S[...] N[...] Street, Lenasia South Ext 4, instead
of his chosen domicilium, 4[...] 1[...] S[...], N[...] Street, Kiasha Park,
Lenasia. He asserts that he never received the notice, as such he was
deprived of his statutory right to debt counselling, and consequently has
suffered prejudice.
[16] Finally, the Respondent argues that summary judgment is a drastic
measure which denies him a full hearing, and that his defences raise
triable issues deserving of determination at trial.
Legal Principles
[17] Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court permits a plaintiff to apply for
summary judgment where the defendant has entered an appearance to
defend but has no bona fide defence. The rule aims to prevent sham
defences and delay tactics, while ensuring that defendants with genuine
disputes are not denied a trial.
[18] In Maharaj v Barclays National Bank Ltd 5, the Appellate Division held
that the defendant must disclose fully the nature and grounds of the
defence and the material facts upon which it relies. The court must be
satisfied that the defence is bona fide and not merely intended to delay
judgment.
5 1976 (1) SA 418 (A).
[19] In Tumileng Trading CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd 6, the
court reaffirmed that a plea disclosing no triable issue may be
excipiable, yet even a skeletal defence will suffice to resist summary
judgment if it is genuine and legally sustainable.
[20] With regard to section 129 of the NCA, Sebola and Others v Standard
Bank of South Africa Ltd supra established that proof of registered
dispatch and “track -and-trace” delivery to the correct post office
ordinarily suffices to prove compliance.
[21] As for cession, it is trite that a debtor cannot challenge the validity of a
cession to which he is not a party, provided the cedent and cessionary
both recognise its validity, as held in Letseng Diamonds Ltd v JCI Ltd
supra.
Evaluation
[22] The Court accepts that an instalment sale agreement was concluded in
April 2023 and that it expressly provided for the cession of rights without
notice to the debtor. The cession agreement of 13 July 2017 between
Potpale and the Applicant therefore validly transferred Potpale’s rights
to the Applicant. The Respondent’s attempt to deny this cession is
unsustainable in law.
[23] The Respondent’s alleged settlement agreement is unsubstantiated. No
written proof or supporting documentation has been produced. His
assertion that the Applicant “is withholding” a signed copy is speculative
and unsupported by evidence. Without corroboration, this version does
not raise a triable issue or a bona fide defence.
6 [2020] ZAWCHC 28.
[24] Regarding the section 129 notice, the Applicant has furnished a “track -
and-trace” confirmation demonstrating that the notice was duly
dispatched by registered post to the Respondent’s chosen domicilium
citandi et executandi , being the address furnished by him in the
instalment sale agreement. The tracking report evidences that the
registered article reached the relevant post office serving that area. The
Respondent nevertheless contends that the notice was sent to an
incorrect address, namely “1[...] S[...] N[...] Street, Lenasia South Ext 4,”
whereas his chosen address was “ 4[...] 1[...] S[...], N[...] Street, Kiasha
Park, Lenasia.”
[25] This contention, however, is misplaced. The Applicant, in its replying
papers, attached evidence obtained through a Google Maps search
confirming that both descriptions in fact refer to the same physical
location. The Respondent has provided no contrary evidence to
suggest that the Google -verified address differs in any material way
from the domicilium address recorded in the contract. The Court is
satisfied that the discrepancy between “ S[...]” and “ S[...],” and between
“Lenasia South Ext 4” and “Kiasha Park, Lenasia,” is merely
typographical and not geographical. They describe the same area
serviced by the same postal office.
[26] The purpose of section 129 of the NCA is to ensure that a consumer is
afforded notice of default and the opportunity to seek assistance before
legal proceedings are instituted. It is not intended to enable a debtor to
evade liability by relying on minor clerical variations in the recorded
address. The Constitutional Court in Sebola and Others v Standard
Bank of South Africa Ltd supra held that a credit provider discharges its
obligation if, on a balance of probabilities, it can show that the notice
reached the correct post office from which the consumer could
reasonably have collected it. Actual receipt by the consumer is not
required, and the Court may infer sufficient delivery from evidence of
proper dispatch and arrival at the relevant postal facility.
[27] The Applicant has met that standard. The Respondent’s bare denial of
receipt, unsupported by independent proof that the address was
incorrect or that the notice was misdirected, does not rebut the
presumption of due delivery. The principle articulated in SA Taxi
Development Finance (Pty) Ltd v Phalafala supra is apposite: non -
receipt of a section 129 notice prior to service of summons is not a
defence where the debtor has, through the summons, become fully
aware of the credit provider’s intention to enfor ce the agreement. To
insist upon re -notification would serve no practical purpose and would
elevate procedural formality over substantive justice.
[28] In the present matter, the Court is accordingly satisfied that the section
129 notice was sent to the correct address as provided by the
Respondent himself, and that the minor discrepancies identified do not
constitute material non-compliance with the NCA. The Respondent has
failed to demonstrate any prejudice occasioned by the manner of
service. His defence on this ground is therefore ill-conceived and cannot
succeed.
[29] The Respondent’s challenges to the cession, the alleged compromise,
and the delivery of the section 129 notice are without legal foundation.
His opposing affidavit consists largely of bald denials and speculative
assertions which fail to disclose any genuine issue requiring trial.
[30] In light of the evidence, the Applicant has established its entitlement to
relief. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate any bona fide
defence.
Conclusion
[31] Summary judgment is indeed a drastic remedy, but it is justified where
the Respondent’s defences are unfounded and contrived. In this
instance, the Respondent has not raised any genuine or triable issue
that would warrant a trial. The Applicant has demonstrated compliance
with all statutory and contractual requirements, and the Respondent
remains in default.
[32] Accordingly, the Court finds that the Applicant is entitled to the relief
sought.
Order
[33] In the result the following is made:
1. The instalment sale agreement concluded between the parties on or
about 20 April 2023 is cancelled.
2. The Respondent, Mr Jabulani John Nkosi, is directed to forthwith
return to the Applicant, SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd, the
2023 Toyota Quantum/Hi -Ace 2.5 D -4D 16S motor vehicle, engine
number 2[...], chassis number A[...].
3. The Applicant’s claim for any further damages as contemplated in
paragraph 16 of the particulars of claim is postponed sine die ,
pending return and valuation of the motor vehicle.
4. The Applicant is entitled to retain all monies paid by the Respondent
under the agreement.
5. The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of suit on the attorney -and-
client scale.
CSP OOSTHUIZEN-SENEKAL
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
DATE OF HEARING: 10 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20 October 2025
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Applicant: Advocate W.A Bava
Cell Phone: 0844070060
Email: waseembava@rsabar.com
Attorney for the Applicant: MVR ATTORNEYS INC
Email: satlegal@mdbin.co.za
Jacobuse@mdbinc.co.za
Counsel for the Respondent: Advocate A.M DENGA
Cell Phone:083 456 1840
Email: alpheus@dengainc.co.za