Thumeka Cetwayo v ABSA Bank Limited

ABSA Bank Limited obtained default judgment against Thumeka Cetwayo on 7 November 2023 for cancellation of a credit agreement regulated by the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 and for return of a Toyota Hilux motor vehicle, after she failed to enter an appearance to defend. The agreement reserved ownership of the vehicle to ABSA and allowed termination upon default. Cetwayo had fallen into arrears of R139 492.95. A section 129 notice was sent to her by email, and summons was served at her nominated physical address on a person identified by the sheriff as her brother. After the vehicle was attached and removed by the sheriff in May 2024, Cetwayo applied for rescission of the default judgment under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a), alleging improper service of summons, defective delivery of the section 129 notice, and raising defences including lack of cancellation, entitlement to return of the vehicle, and reckless lending.

The application for rescission was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on the High Court scale as between party and party.

The case clarifies the application of Uniform Rule 42(1)(a) in rescission proceedings, particularly the requirement that a default judgment must have been erroneously granted. It affirms the evidentiary weight of a sheriff’s return of service, the permissibility of service at a domicilium address despite minor discrepancies, and the validity of electronic delivery of section 129 notices where an email address has been nominated for legal purposes. It also reinforces the principle that credit agreements validly cancelled under the National Credit Act cannot be revived and that a properly conducted affordability assessment defeats a reckless lending defence.