National Credit Regulator v Opperman and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2013 (2) SA 1 (CC)

National Credit Regulator v Opperman and Others
2013 (2) SA 1 (CC)

2013 (2) SA p1

Citation	2013 (2) SA 1 (CC)
Case No	CCT 34/12; [2012] ZACC 29
Court	Constitutional Court
Judge	Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J and Van Der Westhuizen J
Heard	August 21, 2012
Judgment	December 10, 2012
Counsel	S Budlender for the applicant.; M McChesney for the first respondent.; K Pillay for the fourth respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Constitutional law — Human rights — Right to property — What constitutes property — Right to restitution of money paid, based on unjustified enrichment, C to be recognised as 'property' for purposes of Constitution, s 25(1).

Constitutional law — Legislation — Interpretation — Court under duty to give meaning to statutory provision even if that meaning would result in unconstitutionality.

Constitutional law — Legislation — Validity — National Credit Act 34 of 2005, s 89(5)(c) D — Cancelling or forfeiture to state of credit provider's right to recover moneys paid or goods delivered under unlawful credit agreement — Provision resulting in arbitrary and unconstitutional deprivation of property, and thus invalid — Constitution, s 25(1).

Headnote : Kopnota

Section 89(5)(c) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 requires a court to order E that 'all the purported rights of the credit provider under (an unlawful) credit agreement to recover any money paid or goods delivered to, or on behalf of, the consumer in terms of that agreement' are either cancelled or forfeited to the state. Section 25(1) of the Constitution states that '(n)o one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property'. In an appeal F against a high court declaration that the former was inconsistent with the latter, the Constitutional Court —

Held, that, although the wording of s 89(5)(c) was problematic — not fitting perfectly with any of the interpretations advanced — a court had a duty to give meaning to a provision even if that meaning would result in unconstitutionality. (Paragraphs [42] – [43] at 16A – D.) G

2013 (2) SA p2

A Held, further, that the most plausible meaning of s 89(5)(c) was the one the high court gave it: that the section deprived a credit provider of the right to claim restitution, based on unjustified enrichment, of money paid to a consumer in terms of an unlawful agreement. In the circumstances of this case the recognition of such a restitutionary right as property under s 25(1) was B logical and realistic; and the deprivation thereof arbitrary since sufficient reasons had not been given for it. Section 89(5)(c) was not an acceptable limitation (in terms of s 36(1) of the Constitution) of the right not to be deprived of property arbitrarily. (Paragraphs [88] and [91] at 20D – E, 26H – 27B and 27F.) It was inconsistent with s 25(1) of the Constitution and thus invalid.

Cases Considered

Annotations: C

Case law

Southern Africa

Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of Kwazulu-Natal and Others 2010 (2) BCLR 99 (CC) ([2009] ZACC 31): D dictum in paras [110]-[111] applied

Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Others 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC) (2005 (6) BCLR 529; [2005] ZACC 3): dictum in para [108] applied

Afrisure CC and Another v Watson NO and Another 2009 (2) SA 127 (SCA): referred to

Bertie van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2010 (2) SA 181 (CC) (2009 (10) BCLR 978; [2009] ZACC 11): referred to E

Cherangani Trade and Invest 107 (Pty) Ltd v Mason NO and Others 2011 (11) BCLR 1123 (CC) ([2011] ZACC 12): compared

Du Toit v Minister of Transport 2006 (1) SA 297 (CC) (2005 (11) BCLR 1053; F [2005] ZACC 9): referred to

First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service and Another; First National Bank of SA Ltd t/a Wesbank v Minister of Finance 2002 (4) SA 768 (CC) (2002 (7) BCLR 702; [2002] ZACC 5): applied

Harksen v Lane NO and Others 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC) (1997 (11) BCLR 1489; [1997] ZACC 12): referred to G

Henry v Branfield 1996 (1) SA 244 (D): referred to

Hewlett v Minister of Finance and Another 1982 (1) SA 490 (ZS) (1981 ZLR 571): compared

Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others: In re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others v Smit NO and Others H 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC) (2000 (2) SACR 349; 2000 (10) BCLR 1079; [2000] ZACC 12): dictum in para [23] applied

Jajbhay v Cassim 1939 AD 537: referred to Laugh It Off Promotions CC v SAB International (Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) 2006 (1) SA 144 (CC) (2005 (8) BCLR 743; [2005] ZACC 7): referred to

Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another I 2011 (1) SA 400 (CC) (2011 (2) BCLR 150; [2010] ZACC 25): dicta in paras [83] and [84] compared

Mamoojee v Akoo 1947 (4) SA 733 (N): referred to J

2013 (2) SA p3

Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another; Bissett and Others v Buffalo City Municipality and Others; Transfer Rights Action Campaign and Others v MEC, Local Government and Housing, Gauteng, A and Others (KwaZulu-Natal Law Society and Msunduzi Municipality as Amici Curiae) 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC) (2005 (2) BCLR 150; [2004] ZACC 9): referred to

Mohunram and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (Law Review Project as Amicus Curiae) 2007 (4) SA 222 (CC) (2007 (2) SACR 145; 2007 (6) BCLR 575; [2007] ZACC 4): dictum in para [121] B applied

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) ([2012] 2 All SA 262; [2012] ZASCA 13): referred to

Nedbank Ltd and Others v The National Credit Regulator and Another 2011 (3) SA 581 (SCA): dictum in para [2] applied

Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd C and Others 2011 (1) SA 293 (CC) (2011 (2) BCLR 189; [2010] ZACC 20): dicta in paras [39] and [41] applied

Opperman v Boonzaaier and Others (WCC case No 24887/2010, 17 April 2012): upheld on appeal

Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 (2) SA 34 (CC) (2003 (1) BCLR 14; [2002] ZACC 26): referred to D

Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd v Gründlingh and Others 2006 (8) BCLR 883 (CC) ([2006] ZACC 6): referred to

Reflect-All 1025 CC and Others v MEC for Public Transport, Roads and Works, Gauteng Provincial Government, and Another 2009 (6) SA 391 (CC) (2010 (1) BCLR 61; [2009] ZACC 24): referred to E

S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso 1996 (1) SA 388 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 748; 1995 (12) BCLR 1579; [1996] 1 All SA 11; [1995] ZACC 11): dictum in para [18] applied

S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 1; 1995 (6) BCLR 665; [1995] ZACC 3): dictum in para [156] applied

S v Manamela and Another (Director-General of Justice Intervening) F 2000 (3) SA 1 (CC) (2000 (1) SACR 414; 2000 (5) BCLR 491; [2000] ZACC 5): dictum in para [34] applied

S v Zuma and Others 1995 (2) SA 642 (CC) (1995 (1) SACR 568; 1995 (4) BCLR 401; [1995] ZACC 1): dictum in paras [17]-[18] applied

Schierhout v Minister of Justice 1926 AD 99: referred to

Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC) (2012 (8) BCLR 785; [2012] ZACC 11): dictum in G para [40] applied

South African Liquor Traders' Association and Others v Chairperson, Gauteng Liquor Board, and Others 2009 (1) SA 565 (CC) (2006 (8) BCLR 901; [2006] ZACC 7): dictum in para [26] applied

Van der Burg and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another H 2012 (2) SACR 331 (CC) (2012 (8) BCLR 881; [2012] ZACC 12): referred to

Visser en 'n Ander v Rousseau en Andere NNO 1990 (1) SA 139 (A): referred to

Wary Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Stalwo (Pty) Ltd and Another 2009 (1) SA 337 (CC) (2008 (11) BCLR 1123; [2008] ZACC 12): referred to I

Wellworths Bazaars Ltd v Chandler's Ltd and Another 1947 (2) SA 37 (A): dictum at 43 applied.

England

R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46 ([2003] 1 AC 837 (HL)): dictum in para [30] compared. J

2013 (2) SA p4

Ireland A

In the matter of Article 26 of the Constitution and in the matter of the Health (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 2004 [2005] IESC 7: compared.

Statutes Considered

Statutes

B The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 25(1): see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 2011/12 vol 5 at1-28

The National Credit Act 34 of 2005, s 89(5)(c): see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 2011/12 vol 2 at 1-474.

Case Information

C An appeal against a decision of the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Binns-Ward J).

S Budlender for the applicant.

M McChesney for the first respondent.

K Pillay for the fourth respondent.

Cur adv vult. D

Postea (December 10).

Judgment

Van der Westhuizen J (Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J and Skweyiya J concurring): E

Introduction

[1] The central issue is whether s 89(5)(c) of the National Credit Act [1] F (NCA) is consistent with the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of

2013 (2) SA p5

Van der Westhuizen J (Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J and Skweyiya J concurring)

property, recognised in s 25(1) of the Constitution. [2] The Western Cape A High Court, Cape Town (high court), found that it was not, because it denies an unregistered credit provider the right to restitution of money lent out, without affording a court the discretion to consider whether restitution would be just and equitable. The high court declared the provision to be constitutionally invalid. This court has to determine whether the order of constitutional invalidity should be...