Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:14:40Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:14:40Z
dc.date.created 2011-11-15 en
dc.identifier.citation [2012] ZACC 11
dc.identifier.citation 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3658
dc.title Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa and Another (Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa, National Credit Regulator and Banking Association South Africa as Amici Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT98/11 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT98/11 en
dc.contributor.judge Cameron J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Zondo AJ separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 7 June 2012
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3658/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28502%20Kb%29-19003.pdf?sequence=30&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for leave to appeal directly to this Court against an order refusing rescission of a default judgment. Section 129 read with section 130 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (Act) requires credit providers, before commencing legal proceedings to recover debts, to provide consumers with a notice advising them of their right to refer the credit agreement to a debt counselor, alternative dispute resolution agent, consumer court, or ombud, to resolve the dispute. In 2009, the Bank sent the required written notice to the Sebolas' chosen address, but because of a post office error, they never received it. Unaware of this, the Bank took default judgment against them and obtained a writ of execution. Both the South Gauteng High Court and the Full Court on appeal (relying on the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Rossouw v Firstrand Bank Ltd, handed down in 2010), refused to rescind the judgment, ruling that mere despatch of the written notice to the required address was sufficient. The majority in this Court found that the Act required the credit provider to aver and prove that the notice was delivered to the consumer. The Court did not accept that the notice needs to come to the actual attention of the consumer, but held instead that the Act requires the credit provider to prove sufficient delivery of the notice by providing (i) proof of the registered dispatch to the address of the consumer, together with (ii) proof that the notice reached the appropriate post office for delivery to the consumer. If the consumer denies that the notice reached her and the court hearing the matter finds (a) this claim to be true and (b) that the credit provider has not complied with the Act, then the matter must be adjourned, as the Act requires, for the credit provider to take steps as directed by the court to enable the consumer to exercise her rights. The application for rescission was therefore granted. Majority: Cameron J (with Yacoob ADCJ, Froneman J, Khampepe J, Maya AJ, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J and van der Westhuizen J concurring) Minority: Zondo AJ (with Mogoeng CJ and Jafta J concurring)
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal directly to the CC against a judgment of the Full Court of the South Gauteng High Court.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account