South African Securitisation Programme (Rf) (Pty) Ltd v Hakem Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/009594) [2025] ZAGPJHC 230 (6 March 2025)

South African Securitisation Programme (Rf) (Pty) Ltd v Hakem Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/009594) [2025] ZAGPJHC 230 (6 March 2025)

The defendants have raised a bona fide defence by relying on section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the lease agreement terms may be unfair, unreasonable, or unjust. The plaintiff did not invoke any statutory exclusion from the CPA. The court finds that the question of whether the lease terms contravene section 48 requires a full factual evaluation and is not suitable for determination in summary judgment proceedings. Accordingly, the defendants are granted leave to defend the action.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 230
Parties
Plaintiff: South African Securitisation Programme (Rf) (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Hakem Group (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Sebothoma, Monamudi Gabriel
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2025
Case Number
2023/009594
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Reasons for Order Granting Leave to Defend
Outcome
Leave to defend granted to the defendants; costs are in the cause.
Judges
H A van der Merwe
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Consumer Protection Act, Summary Judgment, Guarantee Liability, Unfair Contract Terms
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Consumer Protection Act Summary Judgment Guarantee Liability Unfair Contract Terms

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Securitisation Programme (Rf) (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Hakem Group (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Sebothoma, Monamudi Gabriel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Reasons for Order Granting Leave to Defend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement terms allowing the plaintiff to claim possession of the truck and future payments upon cancellation are unfair, unreasonable, or unjust under section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim based on the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants have raised a bona fide defence by relying on section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the lease agreement terms may be unfair, unreasonable, or unjust. The plaintiff did not invoke any statutory exclusion from the CPA. The court finds that the question of whether the lease terms contravene section 48 requires a full factual evaluation and is not suitable for determination in summary judgment proceedings. Accordingly, the defendants are granted leave to defend the action.

Court Disposition

Leave to defend granted to the defendants; costs are in the cause.

Orders

  • The defendants are granted leave to defend the action.
  • Costs are in the cause.