Gauteng man in a legal battle with Absa over R16,000 debt on unknown car insurance

High Court dismisses Absa’s repossession bid over disputed vehicle insurance. The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an application for summary judgment brought byAbsa Bank Limitedagainst a customer in a dispute over a financed vehicle, ruling that the car owner raised honest defence that must proceed to trial. The matter concerns a 2018 Mazda 3 1.6 Dynamic financed under a written instalment sale agreement concluded in February 2021.

Absa sought confirmation of the cancellation of the agreement and the return of the vehicle, alternatively that the sheriff attach and return it, along with ancillary relief. Absa argued that Thulani Mbucane fell into arrears on his monthly instalments and was in breach of the agreement. As of November 2023, the bank claimed he owed over R16,600.

The bank subsequently cancelled the agreement, accelerated the outstanding balance and issued summons the same month. The bank then applied for summary judgment, arguing that his plea failed to disclose a bona fide defence and was filed merely to delay proceedings. A summary judgment is a court ruling granted without a full trial when one party demonstrates no dispute over material facts, making a trial unnecessary.

[paywall]

Mbucane disputed that he breached the agreement, maintaining that he honoured his monthly instalments. He claims the bank insured the vehicle on his behalf without informing him. He argued that he was unaware he was obliged to insure the vehicle for the duration of the agreement and denied liability for the insurance premiums added to his account.

According to his plea, the premiums — which made up the alleged arrears — were not part of the instalment agreement as he understood it. The defendant further contended that the bank failed to inform him that it had insured the vehicle on his behalf and did not provide policy documents. He stated that the vehicle was involved in two collisions, but he did not submit insurance claims because he was unaware of any policy in place.

He also challenged the certificate of balance relied upon by the bank, arguing that it was insufficient to sustain the claim without a full statement of account. In addition, he denied that the agreement had been properly cancelled or that a section 129 notice had been dispatched to him in compliance with the National Credit Act. After reviewing the evidence, Judge Lebogang Modiba reaffirmed that a defendant opposing summary judgment must disclose a bona fide defence with sufficient detail but is not required to show that the defence is likely to succeed at trial.

[/paywall]