Ramakuela v Firstrand Auto Receivables (RF) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Mangena AJ
• Judgment Date: 31 January 2022
• Docket Number: 4304/2019
• Hearing Date: 24 January 2022
• Court: Limpopo Division, Polokwane
• Citation: 2022 JDR 0197 (LP)

Mangena AJ:

[1]

On the 20th January 2020 the registrar of this court granted default judgment against the applicant and ordered for the cancellation of the agreement between the applicant and the respondent. The applicant was further ordered to return the motor vehicle 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee 3:6 summit to the respondent.

[2]

On the 22nd January 2020, the registrar issued a warrant authorising the sheriff to attach and remove the vehicle from the applicant.

[3]

The respondent acting on the authority of the warrant dispossessed the applicant of the vehicle on 26 November 2020.

[4]

Unhappy with the dispossession, applicant instituted proceedings for the rescission of judgment in terms of Rule 42 (1) (a) of the Uniform Rules of Court, alternatively common law and further alternatively Rule 31 (2) (b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

2022 JDR 0197 p3

Mangena AJ

[5]

The basis of the application as I understand it on both the papers and the oral submissions was that the judgment was granted in error because the registrar is not empowered by the provisions of the National Credit Act to grant a judgment relating to the National Credit Act. There were other submissions made, which given the conclusions I reach, I do not consider it necessary to deal with them, save to state that I did not find them compelling.

[6]

To understand the issue in context, it is necessary that I set out briefly the facts giving rise to this application. They are as follows:- Applicant concluded an installment sale agreement for the purchase of a motor vehicle with Wesbank, a division of Firstrand Bank Limited. In terms of the agreement he was required to make monthly payments towards the motor vehicle and the bank reserved for itself the right to demand the whole balance outstanding in the event of default. The applicant defaulted and the bank issued summons claiming for the cancellation of the agreement, payment of the total balance outstanding as well as return of the motor vehicle. The summons were preceded by the notice issued in compliance with Section 129 (1) of the National Credit Act.

2022 JDR 0197 p4

Mangena AJ

[7]

Summons were served at the applicant's chosen domicilium address and when no appearance to defend was entered, the bank applied for a default judgment. The registrar as opposed to the court granted the default judgment.

[8]

The applicant contends that the registrar was not compent to grant the default judgment because Section 130 (3) of the National Credit Act reserved that power to the court. He argues that only the court clothed with the power to make a determination as to whether there has been compliance with the provisions of Section 129 of the National Credit Act. In support of this contention, he...