Slabbert v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd and Another (2020/41972) [2021] ZAGPJHC 488 (22 September 2021)

Slabbert v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd and Another (2020/41972) [2021] ZAGPJHC 488 (22 September 2021)

The court found that the claims by SASP and Sasfin were properly pleaded in the alternative, as permitted by rule 10(1), and that locus standi would depend on the outcome of the trial regarding the cession. The rental agreement was held not to constitute a credit agreement under the National Credit Act, as it is a true lease where ownership does not pass to the lessee. Therefore, there was no requirement for Sasfin to be registered as a credit provider or to conduct a credit assessment. The exception was dismissed on all grounds, and the court declined to award attorney and own client costs, finding no contractual or legal basis for such an order under the pleaded facts.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 488
Parties
Defendant: Gideon Stephanus Slabbert; Plaintiff: South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd; Plaintiff: Sasfin Bank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2021
Case Number
2020/41972
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / High Court Judgment on Opposed Exception
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs on the party and party scale.
Judges
L.J. du Bruyn
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Credit Agreement Definition, National Credit Act Application, Locus Standi, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Joinder of Parties Credit Agreement Definition National Credit Act Application Locus Standi Exception Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gideon Stephanus Slabbert

Defendant

South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd

Plaintiff

Sasfin Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / High Court Judgment on Opposed Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sasfin Bank Limited lacks locus standi due to cession of rights to SASP.
  2. 2 Whether the rental agreement constitutes a credit agreement under the National Credit Act.
  3. 3 Whether SASP can sue in the name of Sasfin following an out-and-out cession.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claims by SASP and Sasfin were properly pleaded in the alternative, as permitted by rule 10(1), and that locus standi would depend on the outcome of the trial regarding the cession. The rental agreement was held not to constitute a credit agreement under the National Credit Act, as it is a true lease where ownership does not pass to the lessee. Therefore, there was no requirement for Sasfin to be registered as a credit provider or to conduct a credit assessment. The exception was dismissed on all grounds, and the court declined to award attorney and own client costs, finding no contractual or legal basis for such an order under the pleaded facts.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs on the party and party scale.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • The Excipient shall pay the Respondents' costs on the party and party scale.