South Gauteng High Court Dismisses Absa Summary Judgment In Mazda 3 Finance Dispute

The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has turned down an application for summary judgment by Absa Bank Limited in a dispute involving a financed vehicle, finding that the customer presented a genuine defence that warrants a full trial.

The case centres on a 2018 Mazda 3 1.6 Dynamic purchased under a written instalment sale agreement signed in February 2021.

Absa approached the court seeking confirmation that the agreement had been validly cancelled and requesting the return of the vehicle. Alternatively, the bank asked that the sheriff be authorised to attach and recover the car, along with additional relief.

Absa maintained that Thulani Mbucane had fallen behind on his monthly instalments and breached the agreement. By November 2023, the bank alleged that he owed more than R16,600. It subsequently cancelled the contract, accelerated the outstanding balance and issued summons during the same month.

The bank then sought summary judgment, arguing that Mbucane’s plea did not disclose a bona fide defence and had been filed merely to delay the matter.

A summary judgment allows a court to rule without a full trial where there is no genuine dispute over material facts.

South Gauteng High Court ruling on vehicle finance dispute

Mbucane denied breaching the agreement, insisting that he kept up with his monthly instalments. He alleged that the bank insured the vehicle on his behalf without informing him.

According to his plea, he was unaware that he was required to maintain insurance cover for the duration of the agreement and rejected liability for the insurance premiums added to his account. He contended that the premiums — which made up the alleged arrears — were not part of the instalment arrangement as he understood it.

He further argued that the bank did not notify him that it had arranged insurance on his behalf and failed to provide policy documentation. He stated that the vehicle was involved in two accidents, yet he did not submit insurance claims because he did not know any policy existed.

Mbucane also disputed the certificate of balance relied upon by Absa, arguing that it was inadequate to support the claim without a full statement of account. In addition, he denied that the agreement had been properly cancelled and challenged whether a section 129 notice had been dispatched to him in line with the National Credit Act.

Judge Lebogang Modiba finds triable issues in Absa case

In her judgment, Judge Lebogang Modiba reiterated that a defendant opposing summary judgment must set out a bona fide defence with sufficient detail but does not need to prove that the defence will ultimately succeed at trial.

While noting that a person who signs a contract is generally presumed to understand and accept its terms, the court recorded that Mbucane provided an account of how the agreement was concluded.

He said the dealership’s sales consultant handled the finance application and that he had no direct dealings with the bank. Although he was told the vehicle needed to be insured, he believed he could cancel the cover if he could no longer afford it.

Judge Modiba found that Mbucane appeared unaware of an ongoing obligation to insure the vehicle.

YOU MAY ALSO LIK: WATCH| Police Seize Car Fitted With Siren At Robert Mugabe’s Son’s Hyde Park Home After Shooting

She held that if the bank failed to inform him that it had taken out insurance on his behalf, this could amount to a legally recognisable defence, particularly given the alleged prejudice he suffered by not claiming for accident damage.

Although the court found that the bank had complied with its obligations regarding the section 129 notice, that finding alone did not resolve the broader dispute.

Judge Modiba concluded that Mbucane had raised issues fit for trial, particularly concerning the insurance premiums and the calculation of the alleged arrears. The court therefore dismissed Absa’s application for summary judgment and granted him leave to defend the action.