South Africa Case Law

Uys N O and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another (869/2023)

Uys N O and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another (869/2023) [2025] ZASCA 34; [2025] 3 All SA 71 (SCA) (1 April 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

869/2023

Judges

Mokgohloa, Weiner, Kathree-Setiloane, Musi, Windell

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the impugned transactions did not constitute credit agreements as defined by section 8(1)(b) read with section 8(4)(f) of the National Credit Act. The agreements were genuine sale and leaseback transactions, with the properties transferred to the Trust and the sellers retaining an option to repurchase. There was no evidence of a legal obligation to repay the purchase price, nor any disguised intention to simulate a loan agreement. The Regulator failed to provide confirmatory evidence or oral testimony to support its allegations of simulation. The Trust's…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Simulated Transactions
• Credit Agreements Definition
• Sale And Leaseback
• Reckless Credit
• Registration Of Credit Providers

Legacy Business Finance (Pty) Ltd v Jacques and Another (33906/2023)

Legacy Business Finance (Pty) Ltd v Jacques and Another (33906/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 752 (29 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33906/2023

Judge

K Strydom

Eviction under PIE was granted after the court rejected joinder and simulation defences and held the property transfer remained valid.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Eviction Procedure
• Simulated Transactions
• Abstract Transfer Of Ownership
• Joinder Of Parties
• Pie-eviction

Lancaster Group (Pty) Ltd v Capital Creation Partners Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (054476/2022 ; 054457/2022)

Lancaster Group (Pty) Ltd v Capital Creation Partners Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (054476/2022 ; 054457/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 26 (17 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

054476/2022 ; 054457/2022

Judge

Johann Gautschi

The court found that the defendants' plea and resisting affidavit were ambiguous regarding whether the alleged oral agreement covered payments made prior to its conclusion. Although there were indications that the October 2018 agreement was intended to include reimbursement for historic disbursements, the use of future-tense language and confirmation of the plea's wording perpetuated ambiguity. The court held that the defendants had not unambiguously set out facts which, if proved at trial, would constitute a legally or factually sustainable defence as required by Rule 32(3)(b). However, give…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Simulated Transactions
• Loan Agreements
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Suretyship
• Leave To Defend

Uys N.O. and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another (A58/2021)

Uys N.O. and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another (A58/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 651 (10 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A58/2021

Judges

S. Potterill, M.P.N. Mbongwe, M.P. Kumalo

The High Court granted condonation, struck out new material in the answering affidavit, and allowed leave to appeal on a novel National Credit Act issue.

• National Credit Act
• Condonation
• Simulated Transactions
• Credit Agreement Definition
• Striking Out Evidence
• Strike-out

DNI Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v Morningside 3 of Erf One Three Four Three (43577/2019)

DNI Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v Morningside 3 of Erf One Three Four Three (43577/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 831 (26 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43577/2019

Judge

Smit

The court held that the plaintiff's requests for documents under Rule 35(3), though incorporated into the request for further particulars, were sufficiently clear and provided adequate notice to the defendants. The court rejected the defendants' formalistic approach, finding that Rule 35(3) does not require a separate document and that the defendants, being legally represented, were aware of their obligations. The court further analysed each request for further particulars, compelling only those strictly necessary for trial preparation and rejecting those that sought evidence, opinion, or mat…

Source excerpt

• Rule 21 Further Particulars
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Simulated Transactions
• Usurious Interest
• Suretyship Liability

Adidas International Trading AG (Switzerland) and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Adidas International Trading AG (Switzerland) and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service [2023] ZAGPPHC 417; 2019/28878 (6 June 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2019/28878

Judge

NN Bam

The court found that, despite the applicants' failure to apply for referral to trial timeously and the history of extensive correspondence and pleadings, the disputes of fact are material, complex, and fundamental. Both parties concede the existence of such disputes, which cannot be resolved on motion. The allegations against the applicants involve simulated transactions and potential fraud, with significant amounts at stake. The court held that justice requires referral to trial, and any wasted costs or resources due to the applicants' conduct can be addressed by the trial court through an a…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Review Proceedings
• Disputes Of Fact
• Referral To Trial
• Simulated Transactions
• Quantum Of Liability

Uys N.O and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another (A58/2021)

Uys N.O and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another (A58/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 570 (4 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A58/2021

Judges

Potterill, M.P.N. Mbongwe, M.P. Kumalo

High Court appeal on simulated loan agreements disguised as sale and lease transactions under the National Credit Act. Findings confirmed; sanctions partly varied.

• National Credit Act
• Reckless Credit
• Credit Provider Registration
• Affordability Assessment
• Simulated Transactions
• National-credit-act

Motsima and Another v Kopa and Others (2122/2019)

Motsima and Another v Kopa and Others (2122/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 21 (8 February 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2122/2019

Judge

PE Molitsoane

The court found that the Plaintiffs and the Third Defendant concluded a valid written deed of sale and lease agreement, with no evidence of fraud or simulated transactions. The verbal agreement alleged by the Plaintiffs was not compliant with the Alienation of Land Act and was excluded by the written agreements, which expressly recorded the entire agreement between the parties. The Plaintiffs voluntarily transferred ownership and failed to exercise their contractual option to repurchase the property. The subsequent sale to the Kopas was also valid, with no evidence of fraud or misrepresentati…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Public Policy
• Simulated Transactions

Option Deals (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator (A350/19)

Option Deals (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator (A350/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 433 (25 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A350/19

Judges

N.J Kollapen, L.C Haupt

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Tribunal ruling that vehicle sale-and-lease arrangements were simulated credit agreements under the National Credit Act.

• Simulated Transactions
• National Credit Act
• Reckless Credit
• Credit Provider Registration
• Consumer Protection
• Simulated-transactions

National Credit Regulator v Option Deals (Pty) Ltd (NCT/128364/2019/140(1))

National Credit Regulator v Option Deals (Pty) Ltd (NCT/128364/2019/140(1)) [2019] ZANCT 151 (15 September 2019)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/128364/2019/140(1)

Judges

B Dumisa, P Beck, H Devraj

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's transactions with consumers were, in substance, secured credit agreements rather than genuine sale and lease agreements. The Respondent advanced funds to consumers using their vehicles as security, charged excessive interest and fees, and failed to conduct affordability assessments as required by the National Credit Act. The Tribunal held that the Respondent operated as a credit provider without registration, contravened multiple provisions of the NCA, and engaged in prohibited conduct by repossessing vehicles without following proper legal procedures.…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Simulated Transactions
• Reckless Lending
• Affordability Assessment
• Prohibited Conduct
• Administrative Fine