The appellant, a registered credit provider under the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA), concluded small unsecured credit agreements with the respondents in Bloemfontein. The respondents defaulted on their repayment obligations. As required by s 129(1)(a) of the NCA, the appellant sent a statutory default notice by registered post to the respondent’s elected domicilium address in Kimberley, which lay outside the jurisdiction of the Bloemfontein Magistrates’ Court. After no response was received, the appellant obtained the respondent’s written consent to judgment in Bloemfontein and applied to the Bloemfontein Magistrates’ Court for judgment. The magistrate refused to grant judgment, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the s 129 notice had been delivered outside its territorial jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, and the matter proceeded to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was dismissed. The refusal of the Bloemfontein Magistrates’ Court to grant judgment for lack of jurisdiction was confirmed.
The case authoritatively resolves conflicting magistrates’ court decisions by confirming that delivery of a s 129 notice under the NCA forms part of the cause of action. It has significant practical implications for credit providers, as it determines territorial jurisdiction in magistrates’ courts and reinforces strict compliance with consumer-protection mechanisms under the NCA.