Mercedes Benz Financial Services (SA)(Pty) Ltd v Pale (2024/015245) [2025] ZAGPJHC 880 (1 September 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 880 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mercedes Benz Financial Services (SA)(Pty) Ltd v Pale (2024/015245) [2025] ZAGPJHC 880 (1 September 2025) Mercedes Benz Financial Services (SA)(Pty) Ltd v Pale (2024/015245) [2025] ZAGPJHC 880 (1 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_880.html sino date 1 September 2025 ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2024-015245 1. Reportable:  No 2. Of interest to other judges: No 3. Revised: 1 September 2025 WRIGHT J In the matter between: MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES (SA)(Pty) LTD                  APPLICANT and EDWIN PALE                                                                                          RESPONDENT JUDGMENT – WRIGHT J WRIGHT J 1. Mr Pale, the respondent bought a car from Mercedes, the applicant. Mercedes issued summons and after a plea was filed, Mercedes now seeks summary judgment for the return of the car. 2. Mercedes alleges short payment by Mr Pale and subsequent cancellation of the agreement by Mercedes. In a somewhat cryptic plea, Mr Pale alleges that the problem relates to the last, balloon payment. Mr Pale alleges that Mercedes unreasonably refuses to conclude a new agreement relating to the balloon payment. 3. In his affidavit resisting summary judgment, Mr Pale says that he paid the first 71 monthly payments. He says that under clause 4.1.2 of the agreement Mercedes was obliged to send him notice of their election to defer payment of the balloon amount. He says that Mercedes failed to do so. He says that Mercedes, through their representatives, in bad faith mislead him into thinking that he had to apply for refinancing. It would appear that he did, unsuccessfully. He says that he has in good faith paid a monthly amount since then as he wants to keep the car. 4. Correctly read, clause 4.1.2 allows the buyer to notify Mercedes of his intention to defer the last payment. It allows Mercedes then to elect whether or not to defer payment. 5. On Mr Pale’s version he did not ask for deferral as he was told in bad faith by Mercedes that he had to ask for refinancing. On Mr Pale’s documentation, this is not so. Mr Pale has misread clause 4.1.2. The correspondence relied on by Mr Pale shows that he applied for a clause 4.1.2 deferral but that it was declined on 19 March 2024. 6. In my view, Mr Pale does not raise a triable issue on the pleadings and on the resisting affidavit. On the papers before me, the applicant is entitled to summary judgment. 7. At the hearing, Mr Pale appeared in person. He openly said that he owed R259 000. He said that he would pay R100 000 by this coming Friday. 8. Mr Pale said in argument, but not in his plea or resisting affidavit, that he paid R150 000 up front and that this should have reduced the balloon payment. The agreement shows that Mr Pale was credited on day one with R150 000. No defence is raised here. ORDER 1. X – GC WRIGHT JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG HEARD:                          1 September 2025 DELIVERED:                  1 September 2025 APPEARANCES    : APPLICANT                   Ms R Rasivhetshele Instructed by                 Macrobert Inc mbfsl@macrobert.co.za RESPONDENT              In person Instructed by                Mokgehle Mohlala Attorneys mpho@mokgehlemattorneys.co.za sino noindex make_database footer start