Absa Bank Beperk h/a Bankfin v Ntt Toyota (14684/2004) [2009] ZAGPPHC 263 (24 August 2009)

Absa Bank Beperk h/a Bankfin v Ntt Toyota (14684/2004) [2009] ZAGPPHC 263 (24 August 2009)

The court found that eviction occurred when the plaintiff, as owner, realised it could not satisfy SARS regarding lawful importation and payment of duties, and that SARS's claim was unassailable. This moment was established as 12 January 2004, upon receipt of SARS's notice, which was prior to the issuing of summons. The defendant, as seller, failed to provide proof of importation or assist the plaintiff, thereby breaching the implied warranty against eviction. The subsequent formal forfeiture by SARS was deemed irrelevant to the determination of the date of eviction. The plaintiff's claim was uncontested on the facts and the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 263
Parties
Plaintiff: Absa Bank Beperk h/a Bankfin; Defendant: NTT Toyota
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2009
Case Number
14684/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Judgment / Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds; judgment granted against the defendant.
Judges
P Ellis
Legal Topics
Implied Warranty Against Eviction, Customs and Excise Act, Repossession, Purchase and Sale, Proof of Importation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Implied Warranty Against Eviction Customs and Excise Act Repossession Purchase and Sale Proof of Importation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank Beperk h/a Bankfin

Plaintiff

NTT Toyota

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Judgment / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether eviction had occurred prior to the issuing of summons.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to reclaim the purchase price due to the seizure and forfeiture of the vehicle.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff could satisfy the requirements of the Customs and Excise Act regarding proof of importation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that eviction occurred when the plaintiff, as owner, realised it could not satisfy SARS regarding lawful importation and payment of duties, and that SARS's claim was unassailable. This moment was established as 12 January 2004, upon receipt of SARS's notice, which was prior to the issuing of summons. The defendant, as seller, failed to provide proof of importation or assist the plaintiff, thereby breaching the implied warranty against eviction. The subsequent formal forfeiture by SARS was deemed irrelevant to the determination of the date of eviction. The plaintiff's claim was uncontested on the facts and the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds; judgment granted against the defendant.

Orders

  • Payment of R161,778.40 by the defendant to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on R161,778.40 at 15.5% per annum from 29 April 2004 until date of payment.