Cronje and Others v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank (3955/2019; 2778/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 441 (7 November 2023)

Cronje and Others v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank (3955/2019; 2778/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 441 (7 November 2023)

The court held that Firstrand Bank was not required to plead compliance with sections 80 to 83 of the National Credit Act in its particulars of claim. The material facts necessary to sustain the cause of action were adequately pleaded, and the issue of reckless credit constitutes a substantive defence to be raised and proved by the defendants. The National Credit Act does not require a different approach to pleadings or exceptions, and the absence of averments regarding compliance with sections 80 to 83 does not render the particulars of claim excipiable. The general principles of pleadings and exceptions remain applicable, and the exceptions were dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 441
Parties
Applicant: Philippus Johannes Jacobus Cronje; Applicant: Adolf Johannes De Bruyn N.O.; Applicant: Philippus Johannes Jacobus Cronje N.O.; Applicant: Cecile Cronje N.O.; Applicant: Andries Gustav Le Grange N.O.; Applicant: Die Cronje Seuns Boerdery CC; Applicant: Hendrik Bernardus Cronje N.O.; Applicant: Hester Cronje N.O.; Applicant: Judith Maryna Steyn N.O.; Applicant: Judith Maryna Steyn; Applicant: Philip Steyn; Applicant: Judith Maryna de Witt N.O.; Applicant: Tanya de Witt N.O.; Applicant: Philip Steyn N.O.; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2023
Case Number
3955/2019; 2778/2021
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Judgment on Exception
Outcome
Exceptions dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
JP Daffue
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Reckless Credit, Pleading Requirements, Exceptions, Consumer Protection
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance National Credit Act Reckless Credit Pleading Requirements Exceptions Consumer Protection

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philippus Johannes Jacobus Cronje

Applicant

Adolf Johannes De Bruyn N.O.

Applicant

Philippus Johannes Jacobus Cronje N.O.

Applicant

Cecile Cronje N.O.

Applicant

Andries Gustav Le Grange N.O.

Applicant

Die Cronje Seuns Boerdery CC

Applicant

Hendrik Bernardus Cronje N.O.

Applicant

Hester Cronje N.O.

Applicant

Judith Maryna Steyn N.O.

Applicant

Judith Maryna Steyn

Applicant

Philip Steyn

Applicant

Judith Maryna de Witt N.O.

Applicant

Tanya de Witt N.O.

Applicant

Philip Steyn N.O.

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Judgment on Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a credit provider must plead compliance with sections 80 to 83 of the National Credit Act in particulars of claim to avoid exception for lacking averments necessary to sustain a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether failure to plead compliance with the National Credit Act renders the particulars of claim excipiable.
  3. 3 Whether the issue of reckless credit is a substantive defence or a pleading requirement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Firstrand Bank was not required to plead compliance with sections 80 to 83 of the National Credit Act in its particulars of claim. The material facts necessary to sustain the cause of action were adequately pleaded, and the issue of reckless credit constitutes a substantive defence to be raised and proved by the defendants. The National Credit Act does not require a different approach to pleadings or exceptions, and the absence of averments regarding compliance with sections 80 to 83 does not render the particulars of claim excipiable. The general principles of pleadings and exceptions remain applicable, and the exceptions were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Exceptions dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.