South Africa Case Law

SA Taxi Securitasation (Pty) Ltd v Campher (5081/2009)

SA Taxi Securitasation (Pty) Ltd v Campher (5081/2009) [2012] ZAECGHC 9 (24 February 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

5081/2009

Judge

GG Goosen

The court found that the plaintiff had complied with all procedural requirements for summary judgment, including proper delivery of the section 129 notice as required by the National Credit Act. The defendant's argument regarding premature summons was rejected, as the statutory period had elapsed before service. The court held that actual receipt of the notice was not required, and the risk of non-receipt lay with the consumer. Defences based on over-indebtedness and reckless credit were dismissed, as they do not constitute valid defences to a claim for return of goods where ownership remains…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Summary Judgment
• Reckless Credit
• Over Indebtedness
• Delivery Of Notice
• Return Of Goods

Munien v BMW Finanacial Services (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (16103/08)

Munien v BMW Finanacial Services (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (16103/08) [2009] ZAKZDHC 6; 2010 (1) SA 549 (KZD) (3 April 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

16103/08

Judge

Wallis

The court held that the National Credit Act and its regulations prescribe the manner of delivery of notices to consumers. Delivery is effected by sending the notice by registered post to the address chosen by the consumer in the agreement, regardless of whether the notice is actually received or whether postal delivery exists at that address. The risk of non-receipt lies with the consumer, who has the right and obligation to update the credit provider with any change of address. The applicant failed to do so and thus cannot rely on non-receipt as a defence. The court found that the first resp…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Delivery Of Notice
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Domicilium Citandi Et Executandi

Cohen and Another v Lench and Another (139/06)

Cohen and Another v Lench and Another (139/06) [2007] ZASCA 68; [2007] SCA 68 (RSA) ; 2007 (6) SA 132 (SCA) (29 May 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

139/06

Judges

Nugent, Streicher, Farlam, Jafta, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that notice of breach was not validly delivered at the chosen domicilium, so the sale was not lawfully cancelled.

• Specific Performance
• Delivery Of Notice
• Contract Cancellation
• Sale Of Land
• Delivery-of-notice
• Domicilium

Ficksburg Transport (Edms) Bpk. v Rautenbach and Another (191/86)

Ficksburg Transport (Edms) Bpk. v Rautenbach and Another (191/86) [1987] ZASCA 107; [1988] 1 All SA 259 (A) (29 September 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

191/86

Judges

Vivier, Botha, Jacobs

The court held that clause 4.2 of the prospecting contract required personal delivery of the written notice of exercise of the option to the owner or his authorised agent. Delivery at the respondent's address, or to an unauthorised employee, did not satisfy this requirement. The contract did not provide that domicilium citandi et executandi applied to contractual notices, and there was no evidence of waiver by the respondent. The doctrine of fictional fulfilment was inapplicable, as the appellant did not take all reasonable steps to effect personal delivery, such as making inquiries about the…

Source excerpt

• Exercise Of Option
• Delivery Of Notice
• Domicilium Citandi Et Executandi
• Waiver Of Rights