Scott v National Credit Regulator and Others (Leave to Appeal) (105915/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1218 (24 November 2025)

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 1218 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Scott v National Credit Regulator and Others (Leave to Appeal) (105915/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1218 (24 November 2025) Scott v National Credit Regulator and Others (Leave to Appeal) (105915/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1218 (24 November 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1218.html sino date 24 November 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (FULL COURT) Case Number: 105915/2023 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES / NO (3) REVISED: YES /NO DATE: 24 November 2025 SIGNATURE: In the matter between: CHANTELLE SCOTT Applicant and THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR First Respondent THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Second Respondent THE BANKING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA Third Respondent THE DEBT COUNSELLORS’ ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA Fourth Respondent STANDARD BANK OF SA LIMITED Fifth Respondent FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Sixth Respondent NEDBANK LIMITED Seventh Respondent ABSA BANK LIMITED Eighth Respondent CAPITEC BANK HOLDINGS LIMITED Ninth Respondent The matter was heard virtually. The judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email and uploading to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date of the judgment and order is deemed to be 24 November 2025. JUDGMENT LEAVE TO APPEAL APPLICATION Mazibuko AJ (Janse van Nieuwenhuizen et Mali JJ concurring) INTRODUCTION [1]        The third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents (hereinafter referred to as “BASA”) seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) against the whole judgment and the order of this Full Court delivered on 12 May 2025, where the Full Court granted an order in favour of the applicant, (hereinafter referred to as “Scott”) declaring that an application for debt review and or a debt review order does not purge or cure the default of the original credit agreement for the purposes contemplated in section 103(5) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (“the NCA”). [2]        Aggrieved by the Full Court’s decision, BASA has now approached this Full Court for leave to appeal to the SCA against the judgment and order. The application for leave to appeal is opposed, and no cross-appeal has been filed. [3]        BASA argues that there are compelling reasons why they ought to be granted leave to appeal, as the judgment affects consumers and credit providers nationwide. Its implications reach far beyond the immediate interests of the parties. Credit providers will need to adjust their systems and software to account for the judgment. It is further argued that there are compelling reasons, in the public interest, for the SCA to hear the appeal, and there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. [4]        Notwithstanding its concession that the judgment’s implications reach far beyond the immediate interests of the parties, Scott argues that BASA has not shown that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. [5]        Leave to appeal may be granted where a judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there are compelling reasons which exist why the appeal should be heard, such as the interests of justice. In the matter of Caratco (Pty) Limited v Independent Advisory (Pty) Limited, [1] it was pointed out that if the court is unpersuaded that there are prospects of success, it must still enquire into whether there is a compelling reason to entertain the appeal. Compelling reasons would include an important point of law or an issue of public importance that will have an effect on future disputes in our courts. The court also emphasised that the merits remain vitally important and are often decisive. [6]        The test laid down in Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2023, is now a subjective one and no longer an objective test. There must be a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against. [2] The court held in the case of The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others (supra) that: “ It is clear that the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a High Court has been raised in the new Act. The former test whether leave to appeal should be granted was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion, see Van Heerden v Cornwright & Others 1985 (2) SA 342 (T) at 343H. The use of the word “would” in the new statute indicates a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against.” [7]        In MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha and Another , [3] the Supreme Court of Appeal held that: "An applicant for leave to appeal must convince the court on proper grounds that there is a reasonable prospect or realistic chance of success on appeal. A mere possibility of success, an arguable case or one that is not hopeless is not enough. There must be a sound, rational basis to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal." [8]        Having read the application for leave to appeal and considered the submissions by counsel for BASA and Scott, I am persuaded that the issues raised by both parties are of public interest and have significant implications for participants in the credit industry, in which another court is likely to reach legal conclusions that dissent from mine. Those issues include my interpretation of section 103 of the NCA . There are reasonable prospects of the Supreme Court of Appeal reaching a legal conclusion dissent from mine. Leave to appeal has reasonable prospect of success and should be granted. [9]        In the circumstances, I propose the following order: ORDER: [9.1]     The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. [9.2]     The costs of this application for leave to appeal shall be costs in the appeal. N G M MAZIBUKO ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA I agr ee N MALI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA I agree, and it is so ordered N JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Date of hearing:                                                                  18 November 2025 Judgment delivered:                                                           24 November 2025 Appearances : For the applicant :                                                                  Adv N G Louw Attorneys for the applicant:                                                   Jennings Inc For first, second, fourth and tenth respondents: No appearance For third, fifth to ninth respondents: Adv A Cockrell SC Attorneys for third, fifth to ninth respondents: Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc [1] 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA). [2] The Mont Cheveaux Trust (IT2012/28) v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325 at para [6]. [3] (1221/2015) (2016) ZASCA 176 (25 November 2016). sino noindex make_database footer start