Assetline South Africa (Pty) Ltd v MLM and Associates Inc and Another (Appeal) (7960/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 927 (18 August 2023)

Assetline South Africa (Pty) Ltd v MLM and Associates Inc and Another (Appeal) (7960/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 927 (18 August 2023)

The court found that the applicant's primary ground for appeal—that the second agreement was not regulated by the National Credit Act—was not directly disputed by the respondent, whose submissions focused on the first agreement. The court acknowledged that there was a reasonable possibility another court could reach...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 927
Parties
Applicant: Assetline South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MLM and Associates Inc; Respondent: Rose Mosima Leshika
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Case Number
7960/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the Division.
Judges
Mia
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Affordability Assessment, Reckless Credit, Corporate Veil Piercing, Reserve Price, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance National Credit Act Affordability Assessment Reckless Credit Corporate Veil Piercing Reserve Price Attorney and Client Costs

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assetline South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

MLM and Associates Inc

Respondent

Rose Mosima Leshika

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second agreement between the parties was regulated by the National Credit Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was obliged to perform an affordability assessment prior to concluding the second agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the second agreement was void due to alleged non-compliance with the National Credit Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's primary ground for appeal—that the second agreement was not regulated by the National Credit Act—was not directly disputed by the respondent, whose submissions focused on the first agreement. The court acknowledged that there was a reasonable possibility another court could reach a different conclusion regarding the applicability of the National Credit Act to the second agreement and the necessity of an affordability assessment. Given the arguments and the statutory test for leave to appeal, the court determined that leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Court of the Division.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the Division.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this Court dated 4 July 2023 to the Full Court of this division.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.