Kaknis v Absa Bank Limited and Another

Between 2006 and 2008 the appellant, Mr Pantelis Kaknis, concluded several instalment sale agreements with Absa Bank Limited and one with Man Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd for the purchase of vehicles and equipment. After initial compliance, he experienced financial difficulties and entered debt review under s 86 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (NCA). A magistrate’s court debt re-arrangement order was granted in June 2010, and payments ceased in July 2011. The respondents’ claims prescribed on 8 July 2014 in terms of s 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. Despite this, in October 2014 the appellant signed acknowledgements of debt in favour of both respondents. He later defaulted. In April 2015 the respondents issued summons and applied for summary judgment. The appellant opposed, relying on prescription and on s 126B(1)(b) of the NCA (inserted in 2015), arguing that the acknowledgements of debt could not revive prescribed debts. The High Court rejected this defence and granted summary judgment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the summary judgments granted by the Eastern Cape Local Division of the High Court were confirmed.

This case authoritatively confirms that section 126B of the National Credit Act does not operate retrospectively. It clarifies the limits of consumer protection introduced by the 2014 amendments and preserves the principle that prescribed debts may be revived by acknowledgement prior to the commencement of section 126B. The decision reinforces the strong presumption against retrospective application of legislation in South African law, particularly where vested rights would be affected.