africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2025] ZAGPPHC 991South Africa

FFS Finance v Net Wealth (079521/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 991 (9 September 2025)

High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
9 September 2025
OTHER J, Defendant J

Headnotes

judgment.

Judgment

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 991 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## FFS Finance v Net Wealth (079521/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 991 (9 September 2025) FFS Finance v Net Wealth (079521/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 991 (9 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_991.html sino date 9 September 2025 # IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO :  079521/2024 DATE :  25-08-2025 (1) REPORTABLE:  YES / NO . (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  YES / NO. (3) REVISED. DATE 09/09/2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between FFS FINANCE                                                       Plaintiff and NET WEALTH                                                     Defendant JUDGMENT MAKHOBA, J :  The Court will give the ex-tempore judgment which is as follows: 1.         This is an opposed application for summary judgment. 2.         The defendants have given notice of their intention to defend the instituted action and the subsequent plea was delivered by the defendants. 3.         The application for summary judgment relates inter alia to the plaintiff's motor vehicle which the first defendant purchased from the plaintiffs in terms of the common cause written instalment sale agreement, which is reflected in the particulars of claim. 4.         The first defendant is a principal debtor and the second defendant is the surety, who has bound himself as surety in solidum for and with the first defendant as coprincipal debtors jointly and severally with the first defendant towards the plaintiff in terms of common cause written suretyship agreement. 5.         It is common cause from the plea, and if regard is had to paragraph 7 to 7.2.5.8.1 of the defendants' plea, that the first defendant did not honour the first defendant's contractual agree to repayment obligation towards the plaintiff.  He fell in arrears with the payment obligation towards the plaintiff and as a result he breached the common cause written sale agreement. 6.         It is further common cause that the agreement was breached because the first defendant did not pay and fell in arrears. 7.         It was agreed by the parties, it is common cause in the written instalment sale agreement that the first defendant had to make specific monthly instalment payments towards the plaintiff, and if it failed to punctually pay one of those monthly instalment payments, the first defendant will be in breach of the instalment sale agreement with the resultant effect that the full outstanding balance became owing and payable. 8.         In addition, it is common cause between the parties that the instalment sale agreement was breached, as I have already alluded to, the plaintiff was entitled to have instituted the action indeed against the defendant in this matter.  It is trite that the defendant must show that there is a bona fide defence to the claim. 9.         It is quite clear also that in this matter, that the plaintiff exercise its rights in law as the innocent party to have cancelled the instalment sale agreement and act. 10.        The plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle and there is also no bona fide defence raised by the defendant, that trumps the plaintiff's ownership of the motor vehicle. 11.        In the absence of the bona fide defence, the Court must find in favour of the plaintiff. The judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff and the draft order which I have marked X is made an order of court. - - - - - - - - - - - - MAKHOBA, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  ……………… sino noindex make_database footer start

Similar Cases

FFS Finance South Africa (RF) (Pty) t/a Ford Credit v Lamola (79127/2023;24590/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1891; 2024 (2) SA 427 (GP) (9 November 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1891High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
FFS Finance South Africa (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Vos (28656/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 410 (9 June 2022)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 410High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
W Capital Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another v GP Venter Attorneys Inc and Another (79444/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 223 (11 March 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 223High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Financial Sector Conduct Authority v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (009838/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1169 (4 November 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1169High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Financial Sector Conduct Authority v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (009838/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 675; 2025 (6) SA 591 (GP) (9 July 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 675High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar

Discussion