Railway Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Mokoena (A15/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1264 (2 December 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 1264 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Railway Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Mokoena (A15/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1264 (2 December 2025) Railway Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Mokoena (A15/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1264 (2 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1264.html sino date 2 December 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case Number: A15/2025 (1)      REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES /NO (3)      REVISED: YES/ NO DATE 2.12.2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: RAILWAY FURNISHERS (PTY) LTD Appellant and JOSEPHINA MOKOENA Respondent JUDGMENT JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J Introduction [1] The issue to be determined in this appeal is crisp, to wit; whether the appellant should have complied with the provisions of the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 , even though the sale agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent is not governed by the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 (“NCA”). Facts [2] The respondent purchased goods from the appellant for a total amount of R 3 666, 00. The parties entered into a sale agreement in terms of which the purchase price will be paid in 22 monthly instalments of R 150, 00 which equates to R 3 300,00, with a final payment of R 66, 00. [3] The respondent defaulted in her payment obligations and the appellant issued summons in the Magistrates Court Brits, Madibeng (“the court a quo” ) for payment of the amount owed and mora interest at the rate of 11,25 % from date of service of the summons to date of final payment. [4] The respondent did not enter appearance to defend, and the appellant applied for default judgment against the respondent. The court a quo refused the application and held that, although the sale agreement is not governed by the NCA, the appellant still had to perform an affordability assessment. Legal position [5] The court a quo’s rationale for its finding is encapsulated in the judgment as follows” “ (5) The magistrate is still of the opinion that even though, for all technical reasons it may be argued that the NCA has no application, the scope and the intention of the NCA should be applied to all transactions where something is paid over time, except for incidental credit because the credit act regulates credit.” [6] The court a quo is quite correct that the NCA has, in accordance with its preamble, been enacted to, inter alia, “prohibit certain unfair credit and credit-marketing practices. ” [7] In order to achieve the aforesaid goal, the legislature defined, in section 8, credit agreements that are subject to the provisions of the NCA. Once an agreement falls within the ambit of section 8, section 80 (reckless credit) and section 81 (prevention of reckless credit) apply and the credit provider is obliged to perform a proper affordability assessment. [8] In the result, the “ scope and the intention” of the NCA appears clearly from its provisions and as long as the sale agreement in question does not fall within the ambit of the NCA, the court a quo erred in applying its provisions to the agreement. [9] The court might well be correct that the scope of section 8 should be widened to include sale agreements such as the one in question, but in view of the principle of separation of powers, such an exercise is best left to the legislator to undertake. Order [10] In the result, I propose the following order: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following: “ Default judgment is granted against the respondent for: 1. Payment in the sum of R 2 265, 00; 2. Mora interest on the aforesaid amount at 11,25% per annum, calculated from the date of service of the Summons to date of final payment; 3. Costs of suit.” JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION I agree. LABUSCHAGNE J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION DATE HEARD: 14 October 2025 DATE DELIVERED: November 2025 APPEARANCES Counsel for the Applicant: Adv Rip SC Instructed by: Lourens & Schwartz Attorneys Inc sino noindex make_database footer start