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
Rooplal N.O. v Khangela and Another (2020/11111) [2021] ZAGPJHC 516 (28 April 2021)
The High Court enforced a vehicle finance agreement against the first respondent, but postponed mortgage relief pending proper section 129 notice to the second respondent.
IEMAS Financial Services (Co-operative) Limited v Fieland; IEMAS Financial Services (Co-operative) Limited v Claasen; IEMAS Financial Services (Co-operative) Limited v Kalanie; IEMAS Financial Services (Co-operative) Limited v Sathu; IEMAS Financial Services (Co-operative) Limited v Mkhwanazi; IEMAS Financial Services (Co-operative) Limited v Makatong (18726-2016; 93244-15; 96970-15; 75686-15; 40873-16; 96640-15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 575 (8 September 2017)
The court held that jurisdiction is properly founded in the High Court where the place of performance of the credit agreements, namely payment into the plaintiff's Centurion account, falls within its jurisdiction. The distinction between High Court and magistrates' court jurisdiction was emphasised: the High Court requires only that the cause arises within its area, not wholly as in the magistrates' court. The delivery of s 129(1) notices outside the jurisdiction is irrelevant for High Court jurisdiction. The plaintiff complied with all procedural requirements under the National Credit Act an…
Source excerpt
Jili v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank (763/2013) [2014] ZASCA 183; 2015 (3) SA 586 (SCA) (26 November 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, in terms of section 88(3) of the National Credit Act and as confirmed by the Constitutional Court in Ferris v FirstRand Bank Ltd, a credit provider is entitled to enforce the original credit agreement without further notice once the debtor defaults on a debt re-arrangement order. The appellant's argument that the debt re-arrangement order must first be set aside or varied was rejected, as this would create unnecessary procedural hurdles and confusion. The court further held that its discretion to refuse summary judgment is limited to cases where there is…
Source excerpt
First Rand Bank Limited v Kona and Another (13136/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 215 (7 March 2014)
The court held that a magistrate's court order for debt re-arrangement under section 86(7)(c) of the National Credit Act constitutes a bar to sequestration proceedings until such order is set aside by a competent court. The applicant's attempt to proceed with sequestration without first setting aside the debt re-arrangement order is impermissible. Section 86(10) of the National Credit Act does not provide a mechanism for setting aside a magistrate's order by mere notice; it only terminates the debt review application process, not the order itself. The applicant's conduct in seeking sequestrat…
Source excerpt
Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd v Grobler and Another ([2012] 3 All SA 518 (GNP)) [2011] ZAGPPHC 235; [2011] ZAGPPHC 84 (2 June 2011)
The court held that the applicant was entitled to enforce the credit agreement after terminating the debt review in accordance with section 86(10) of the National Credit Act, as the respondents were in default and the statutory requirements for termination were met. The subsequent debt review application did not bar enforcement, as section 86(2) precludes further debt review applications once enforcement steps have commenced. The Magistrate's Court lacked jurisdiction to resume the debt review, as only the court hearing enforcement proceedings may do so under section 86(11). However, given th…
Source excerpt
Collett v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Another (2011 (4) SA 508 (SCA); [2011] 3 All SA 585 (SCA)) [2011] ZASCA 78; 766/2010 (27 May 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 86(10) of the National Credit Act allows a credit provider to terminate a debt review at any time after 60 business days from the consumer's application, provided the consumer is in default, and that this right continues until the Magistrate's Court makes an order under section 87. Referral to the Magistrate's Court does not extinguish the credit provider's right to terminate the debt review. Section 86(11) must be interpreted to empower both the Magistrate's Court and the High Court hearing enforcement proceedings to order the resumption of the d…
Source excerpt
Explore more
