•. r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MIDDELBURG (LOCAL SEAT)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED YES/NO
(4)
signature
In the matter between:
JACOB THANDIZWE DUMA
And
12/06/2026
DATE
FIRST RAND AUTO RECEIVABLES (RF) LIMITED
CASE NUMBER: 3947 / 2023
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Delivered: this judgment was handed down electr.onical/y by circulation to the
parties ' legal representatives by email. The date of hand down is deemed to be
12 June 2026
JUDGMENT
Phahlamohlaka J
Introduction
[ l] This is an application for rescission of a default judgment granted against
the Applicant, Mr. Jacob Thandizwe Duma, in favour of the Respondent,
Firstrand Auto Receivables (RF) Ltd, arising from a dispute over a vehicle sale
and financing agreement.
Background and Facts
[2] On 29 March 2018, the parties entered into a written instalment sale
agreement for a 2018 Hyundai Creta 1.6 Executive AT.
[3] The agreement required a deposit of Rl0,000, 71 monthly instalments of
R6,2l 9.32, and a balloon payment of Rl 11,863.03 due on 25 April 2024.
Ownership of the vehicle would only pass to the Applicant upon full payment
of all amounts due.
[4] The Applicant fell into arrears from August 2022 and made only sporadic
payments thereafter. Despite some payments, the arrears were not cleared,
and the account remained in default.
[5] Upon expiry of the agreement in April 2024, the balloon payment became
due, further increasing the arrears to R 151,590.86 as of the date of the
answering affidavit.
[6] The Respondent sent a Section 129 notice (as required by the National
Credit Act) to the Applicant's chosen address via registered post and email.
[7] The summons was served at the Applicant's chosen domici/ium cilandi el
executandi by affixing it to the entrance gate.
[8] The respondent applied for judgment by default which was granted on
l O May 2024 after the applicant failed to defend the action. The vehicle was
subsequently repossessed by the Sheriff on 2 July 2024.
The Applicant's Grounds for Rescission
2
[6] The Applicant seeks rescission under Rule 42( l) (a), alleging that he did not
receive the section 129 notice and that he was not served with the summons.
Alternatively, the applicant submitted that if the court finds that he was
properly issued with the section 129 notice and that the summons was properly
served on him, the judgment must be rescinded on the basis that he has a
bona fide defence to the respondent's particulars of claim.
Analysis
[7] Evidence shows the Section 129 notice was sent to the correct address
and email, and a first notification was issued by the Post Office. The
Applicant's own affidavit acknowledges receipt of the notice via email.
(8] the applicant does not allege that the summons was not properly served.
The return of service confirms the summons was served at the correct address
by affixing, which is valid service under the rules. The applicant complains
that he did not receive the summons.
[9] It is the applicant's case that should the court find that the judgment was
not granted erroneously, then the court must find that the applicant has a
bona fide defence to the respondent's particulars of claim.
[ l O] It is not in dispute that at the time summons was issued the applicant was
in arrears in breach of the agreement, and that he is still in arrears. The
applicant therefore has not provided a bona fide defence to the
Respondent's claim.
[ l l] As the titleholder, the respondent is entitled to repossess the vehicle upon
default.
[ 12] as alluded to earlier, there is no evidence of any irregularity or error in the
granting of the default judgment. I am satisfied that the respondent
complied with all procedural and substantive requirements. I further find that
the applicant has no bona fide defence to the respondent's particulars of
claim.
[ 13] Consequently, the applicant has failed to establish grounds for rescission
of the default judgment. Therefore, the application for rescission lacks merit.
3
Order
[ 14) In the result I make the following order:
l. The applicat ion for rescission of judg ment is dismissed.
2. The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application on scale B.
Appearances
For the plaintiff: Adv BR Ledwaba
Instruct ed by: E Talone Attorneys
Email: talane@icon.co .za
mokoena@talaneinc.co.za
For the defe ndan t: Adv S Niemand
Instructed by:
Email:
Fabricious Attorney
reinhardt@felaw.ca.za
Date judgme nt reserved: 3 March 2026
4
K F Phahlamohlaka
Judge of the High Court