Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Capper v Wasserman (18 July 2025) (068622/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 742 (18 July 2025)
The High Court held that a R1 million loan between close family-like parties was not an arm’s length credit agreement under the National Credit Act.
Lasertek Payment Solutions (Pty) Limited v Electronic Connect (Pty) Limited (2023/093414) [2025] ZAGPJHC 243; [2025] 2 All SA 474 (GJ) (4 March 2025)
The court found that the applicant was not registered as a credit provider with the National Credit Regulator at the time the loan agreement was entered into, despite being required to do so under section 40(1) of the National Credit Act, as the principal debt exceeded the prescribed threshold. The court held that the parties were not dealing at arm's length, given the structure of the agreements, the involvement of third parties, and the lack of independence between the applicant and respondent. The court concluded that the loan agreement and related clauses in the September agreement were u…
Source excerpt
Allied Steelrode (Pty) Ltd v Dreyer and Another (1120/2022) [2023] ZASCA 181 (21 December 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the loan and acknowledgment of debt (AOD) arose from a close personal relationship and were not concluded at arm's length. The loan was a one-time gesture of friendship, not a customary business transaction, and no interest was charged except in the event of default. The evidence showed that the parties did not strive to obtain the utmost advantage from the transaction, and the appellant was not acting as a credit provider in the ordinary course of business. Consequently, the transaction and the AOD lacked the character of a credit agreement as defined b…
Source excerpt
Petzer v Dixon (A07/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 63 (24 March 2023)
The court found that the National Credit Act did not apply to the personal loan between the parties because they were not dealing at arm's length; the loan was a once-off transaction between friends, with no profit motive, and the respondent was not in the business of providing credit. The respondent was not required to register as a credit provider, as the total principal debt fell below the statutory threshold. The evidence showed that the parties always treated the personal loan and the business loans separately, and there was no common intention to include the personal loan in the sale of…
Source excerpt
Cooks v Nel (15066/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1053 (27 October 2022)
The court found that the Defendant raised a bona fide defence that the AoD may constitute a credit agreement subject to the National Credit Act, and that the Plaintiff may have been required to register as a credit provider at the time of the agreement. The Plaintiff's reliance on the Friend v Sendal decision was misplaced, as it had been overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Du Bruyn NO and Others v Karsten, which held that the NCA applies to once-off credit agreements above the threshold, regardless of the parties' relationship. The evidence presented was insufficient to conclusively…
Source excerpt
Heydenrych v Forsyth (A5015/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 391 (31 May 2022)
The court found that the appellant and respondent were brothers-in-law with a close familial and emotional relationship spanning 35 years. The evidence showed that the appellant was dependent on the respondent, and the respondent did not seek to obtain the utmost advantage from the transaction. The loan agreement was not concluded at arm's length, falling within the exceptions provided by section 4(2)(b)(iii) of the National Credit Act. Consequently, the NCA did not apply, and the respondent was not required to register as a credit provider. The appellant's explanation for the delay in prosec…
Source excerpt
Els v Swart N.O. and Another (MG10/2015) [2016] ZANWHC 43 (16 September 2016)
The High Court held that the dispute over repayment of joint-development expenses was not a National Credit Act credit agreement, and the special plea failed.
Natsure Steel (Pty) Ltd v Illing (68409/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 33 (29 January 2016)
The court found that the parties were factually and legally independent, and the transaction was at arm's length. The existence of an employer-employee relationship did not alter the commercial nature of the agreement. Both parties sought to maximize their respective advantages, and the agreement included standard commercial terms such as interest, acceleration, and punitive costs. As such, the National Credit Act applied, and the plaintiff was required to comply with its statutory notice provisions. The defendant raised a bona fide defence, and summary judgment was refused.
Source excerpt
Eden Court Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Khan (3918/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 383 (7 December 2012)
The High Court refused summary judgment, finding the defendant had raised bona fide defences about the loan agreement, the NCA, and whether the parties dealt at arm’s length.
Dayan v Dayan (014482/09) [2011] ZAGPJHC 50 (13 May 2011)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against making a Beth Din arbitration award an order of court, holding there was no challenge to the award and the National Credit Act did not apply.
Explore more
