Nedbank Limited v Mathebula (337/22; 384/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 621 (12 June 2024)

Nedbank Limited v Mathebula (337/22; 384/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 621 (12 June 2024)

The court found that the defendant failed to disclose a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment. The defence of supervening impossibility due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions was not supported by the facts, as the impossibility was subjective and did not persist beyond the hard lockdown period. The defendant remained in possession of the vehicles and did not dispute the arrears or the plaintiff's entitlement to cancel the agreements. The authorities confirm that only absolute, objective impossibility excuses performance, and diminished commercial ability or personal incapacity does not suffice. The court granted summary judgment for cancellation and return of the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 621
Parties
Plaintiff: Nedbank Limited; Defendant: Thomas Johannes Mathebula
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2024
Case Number
337/22; 384/22
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Delivery of Plea
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for cancellation and return of vehicles; damages component postponed; defendant granted leave to defend arrear payments during hard lockdown; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
A.M. Mtembu
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Supervening Impossibility, Instalment Sale Agreement, Force Majeure, Arrear Payments
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Supervening Impossibility Instalment Sale Agreement Force Majeure Arrear Payments

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Plaintiff

Thomas Johannes Mathebula

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Delivery of Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has disclosed a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the national lockdown and Covid-19 restrictions constitute a supervening impossibility excusing the defendant's contractual performance.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to relief from his obligations under the instalment sale agreements for the period of lockdown.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to disclose a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment. The defence of supervening impossibility due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions was not supported by the facts, as the impossibility was subjective and did not persist beyond the hard lockdown period. The defendant remained in possession of the vehicles and did not dispute the arrears or the plaintiff's entitlement to cancel the agreements. The authorities confirm that only absolute, objective impossibility excuses performance, and diminished commercial ability or personal incapacity does not suffice. The court granted summary judgment for cancellation and return of the...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for cancellation and return of vehicles; damages component postponed; defendant granted leave to defend arrear payments during hard lockdown; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The credit agreements are cancelled.
  • The defendant is ordered to return the 2018 Toyota Quantum 2.7 Sesfikile 16s vehicles to the plaintiff.