Investec Bank Limited t/a Investec Private Bank v Mavungu David Ramurunzi

Investec Bank issued credit facilities to Mr Ramurunzi, including a credit card and vehicle finance. Mr Ramurunzi fell into arrears and the bank issued summons in August 2008 claiming the outstanding debt. Although a section 129 notice under the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA) had been sent earlier, its proper delivery was disputed. Proceedings were adjourned in 2012 in terms of section 130(4)(b) of the NCA to allow the bank to send a fresh section 129 notice, which it did more than three years after the debt became due. Mr Ramurunzi raised a special plea that the debt had prescribed, arguing that prescription was not interrupted by the summons because section 129 had not been complied with prior to its service.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Western Cape High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the defendant’s special plea of prescription with costs.

The case clarifies the interaction between the National Credit Act and the Prescription Act, confirming that non-compliance with section 129 does not prevent interruption of prescription by summons. It provides authoritative guidance that section 129 creates a procedural delay rather than a substantive bar, thereby ensuring certainty for credit providers and courts in debt enforcement matters.