WRIGHT J
1. The applicant bought a car and had it financed by the respondent. The applicant
took possession of the car. Then she received a demand or a request that she go
to the respondent’s offices as they were investigating fraud allegedly committed
by the applicant in buying the car. The applicant went to the respondent’s offices
where she signed a document surrendering the car. The agreement of purchase
was cancelled and she returned the car.
2. The applicant then launched an urgent application seeking a declarator that the
cancellation was invalid, seeking rectification of the surrender document,
seeking a declarator that the purchase agreement remains valid and seeking an
order that the vehicle be returned to her. In the alternative, she seeks
compensation for the car if the respondent no longer has it.
3. A rule nisi was obtained by the applicant, apparently on an unopposed basis.
The rule has been extended until 8 June 2026 on the opposed motion roll and the
matter is now before me.
4. The applicant alleges coercion and misrepresentation.
5. The answering affidavit sets out the facts alleged by the respondent in some
detail. The applicant allegedly arranged finance through a broker. Fraudulent
employment documentation was allegedly used by the applicant and her broker
to obtain finance.
6. Given the huge disputes of fact, the matter cannot be decided on paper and the
rule nisi cannot stand.