REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Nu m ber: A15/2025
(1) RE PORTABLE : YES/ NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES Y'ESiNO
(3) REV ISED: YES/lll'O"
2. • \ 2-l J!) d--=-0 __
DATE SIGNATURE
In the ma tter between:
RAILWAY FURNISHERS (PTY) LTD A ppellant
and
JOSEPHINA MOKOENA Respond ent
JUDGMENT
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J
Introduction
[1] The issue to be determined in this appeal is crisp, to wit; whether the appellant
should have complied with the provisions of the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005,
even though the sale agreement entered into between the appellant and the
respondent is not governed by the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 ("NCA").
Facts
[2] The respondent purchased goods from the appellant for a total amount of R
3 666, 00. The parties entered into a sale agreement in terms of which the
purchase price will be paid in 22 monthly instalments of R 150, 00 which equates
to R 3 300,00, with a final payment of R 66, 00.
[3] The respondent defaulted in her payment obligations and the appellant issued
summons in the Magistrates Court Brits, Madibeng ("the court a quo'') for
payment of the amount owed and mora interest at the rate of 11 ,25 % from date
of service of the summons to date of final payment.
[4] The respondent did not enter appearance to defend, and the appellant applied
for default judgment against the respondent. The court a quo refused the
application and held that, although the sale agreement is not governed by the
NCA , the appellant still had to perform an affordability assessment.
Legal position
[5] The court a quo's rationale for its finding is encapsulated in the judgment as
follows"
"(5) The magistrate is still of the opinion that even though, for all technical
reasons it may be argued that the NGA has no application, the scope and the
2
intention of the NGA should be applied to all transactions where something is
paid over time, except for incidental credit because the credit act regulates
credit."
[6] The court a quo is quite correct that the NCA has, in accordance with its
preamble, been enacted to, inter alia, "prohibit certain unfair credit and credit
marketing practices."
[7] In order to achieve the aforesaid goal, the legislature defined, in section 8, credit
agreements that are subject to the provisions of the NCA. Once an agreement
falls within the ambit of section 8, section 80 (reckless credit) and section 81
(prevention of reckless credit) apply and the credit provider is obliged to perform
a proper affordability assessment.
[8] In the result, the "scope and the intention" of the NCA appears clearly from its
provisions and as long as the sale agreement in question does not fall within the
ambit of the NCA , the court a quo erred in applying its provisions to the
agreement.
[9] The court might well be correct that the scope of section 8 should be widened to
include sale agreements such as the one in question, but in view of the principle
of separation of powers, such an exercise is best left to the legislator to
undertake.
Order
[10) In the result, I propose the following order:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following:
"Default judgment is granted against the respondent for:
1. Payment in the sum of R 2 265, 00;
2. Mora interest on the aforesaid amount at 11, 25% per annum , calculated
from the date of service of the Summons to date of final payment;
3
3. Costs of suit."
VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J
E OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
I agree.
E OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
DATE OF HEARING :
14 Oc tober 2025
DA TE DELIVERED:
N ovembe r 2025
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the Ap plicant: Adv R ip SC
Instructed by: Lourens & Schw artz A ttorneys Inc
4