Bayport Securitisation Limited and Another v University of Stellenbosch Law Clinic and Others

The University of Stellenbosch Law Clinic and other respondents, acting on behalf of several consumers, brought application proceedings in the Western Cape High Court seeking declaratory relief concerning the interpretation of sections 101(1)(g) and 103(5) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA). They contended that 'collection costs' include all legal costs incurred by credit providers in enforcing credit agreements, whether before litigation, during litigation, or after judgment, and that the statutory cap in section 103(5) continues to apply for as long as the consumer remains in default, even after judgment. Bayport Securitisation Limited, a credit provider, and the Law Society of South Africa opposed this interpretation. The High Court granted the declaratory relief sought. Bayport and the Law Society appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Western Cape High Court was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application.

This judgment provides authoritative clarity on the interpretation of 'collection costs' under the National Credit Act and confirms that litigation costs are excluded from the statutory cap in section 103(5). It preserves the common-law distinction between collection and litigation costs and safeguards the courts’ discretion in awarding costs. The decision has important implications for credit providers, consumers, and debt enforcement practices, particularly in relation to emoluments attachment orders and post-judgment debt recovery.