Capper v Wasserman (18 July 2025) (068622/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 742 (18 July 2025)

Capper v Wasserman (18 July 2025) (068622/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 742 (18 July 2025)

The court found that the relationship between the applicant and respondent was akin to that of mother and son, marked by co-dependence and trust. The respondent's insistence on interest and drafting the agreement did not alter the fundamentally non-arm's length nature of the transaction. Section 4(2)(b)(iii)(aa) of the National Credit Act excludes such arrangements from the Act's application. Therefore, the applicant was not required to register as a credit provider, and the loan agreement was valid and enforceable. The respondent's conduct in refusing repayment was morally reprehensible and justified a punitive costs order.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 742
Parties
Applicant: Annette Capper; Respondent: Ajay Wasserman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Case Number
068622/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Loan Agreement, National Credit Act, Arm S Length Transaction, Punitive Costs, Familial Relationship Exception
Commercial and Corporate Loan Agreement National Credit Act Arm S Length Transaction Punitive Costs Familial Relationship Exception

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annette Capper

Applicant

Ajay Wasserman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan agreement between the applicant and respondent is void under the National Credit Act due to lack of registration as a credit provider.
  2. 2 Whether the parties were dealing at arm's length as contemplated by section 4(2)(b)(iii)(aa) of the National Credit Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is liable to repay the R1 million loan and interest to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relationship between the applicant and respondent was akin to that of mother and son, marked by co-dependence and trust. The respondent's insistence on interest and drafting the agreement did not alter the fundamentally non-arm's length nature of the transaction. Section 4(2)(b)(iii)(aa) of the National Credit Act excludes such arrangements from the Act's application. Therefore, the applicant was not required to register as a credit provider, and the loan agreement was valid and enforceable. The respondent's conduct in refusing repayment was morally reprehensible and justified a punitive costs order.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent must pay the applicant R1,000,000.
  • Interest at 10% per annum from 1 November 2023 until date of final payment.