Manamela and Others v Transunion Credit Bureau and Others (4434/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 283 (12 September 2024)

Manamela and Others v Transunion Credit Bureau and Others (4434/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 283 (12 September 2024)

The court found that the first respondent failed to satisfy the statutory threshold requirements under section 70(2)(c) of the National Credit Act by not verifying the accuracy of the adverse credit information before publishing it. The second respondent was not a credit provider to the applicants, and no credit agreement existed between them. The applicants had a direct and substantial interest in the subject-matter and were entitled to bring the application collectively. The procedural objections raised by the first respondent regarding the commissioning of affidavits and locus standi were dismissed as meritless. The removal of the adverse listing prior to the hearing did not render the...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 283
Parties
Applicant: Dipitseng Maropeng Manamela; Applicant: Lemakatso Moorosi; Applicant: Mmathebe Annah Faith Moja; Applicant: Theda Ntikile Sandlana; Applicant: Puseletso Matete; Applicant: Luvuyo Xola Ntoyi; Applicant: Louis Evelyn van Rheede van Oudtshoorn; Respondent: Transunion Credit Bureau; Respondent: Keolebogile Consortium (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hendrick Nkomo; Respondent: National Credit Regulator
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2024
Case Number
4434/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in respect of prayers 1 and 4 of the notice of motion; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Adverse Credit Listing, Consumer Protection, Locus Standi, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure National Credit Act Adverse Credit Listing Consumer Protection Locus Standi Costs Order

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dipitseng Maropeng Manamela

Applicant

Lemakatso Moorosi

Applicant

Mmathebe Annah Faith Moja

Applicant

Theda Ntikile Sandlana

Applicant

Puseletso Matete

Applicant

Luvuyo Xola Ntoyi

Applicant

Louis Evelyn van Rheede van Oudtshoorn

Applicant

Transunion Credit Bureau

Respondent

Keolebogile Consortium (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Hendrick Nkomo

Respondent

National Credit Regulator

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adverse credit listing recorded against the applicants was lawful and valid.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent complied with its statutory duties under the National Credit Act before publishing the adverse credit information.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application collectively.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent failed to satisfy the statutory threshold requirements under section 70(2)(c) of the National Credit Act by not verifying the accuracy of the adverse credit information before publishing it. The second respondent was not a credit provider to the applicants, and no credit agreement existed between them. The applicants had a direct and substantial interest in the subject-matter and were entitled to bring the application collectively. The procedural objections raised by the first respondent regarding the commissioning of affidavits and locus standi were dismissed as meritless. The removal of the adverse listing prior to the hearing did not render the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in respect of prayers 1 and 4 of the notice of motion; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • Prayers 1 and 4 of the notice of motion are granted.
  • The first and second respondents are to pay the applicants’ application costs jointly and severally, with counsel's fees on scale C, the one paying the other to be absolved.