The times of banks suing you within the excessive courtroom are over

A latest judgment by a full bench of the Grahamstown Excessive Court docket makes it illegal for banks to carry Nationwide Credit score Act issues earlier than the excessive courtroom as a substitute of the less expensive magistrates’ courts.

Attorneys have complained for years that banks have been trying to financially damage their clients by forcing them into the excessive courts in an effort to gather on excellent money owed. Additionally they argue that forcing clients into excessive courts – typically removed from the place they dwell, a follow often called ‘discussion board buying’ – is an additional prejudice meant to stack the deck towards a buyer in default.


Aside from being financially ruinous for patrons, it is usually a denial of entry to justice.

This latest judgment means lenders now not have that luxurious of suing in excessive courts. Although the judgment is confined to credit score agreements falling underneath the Nationwide Credit score Act (NCA), a minority ruling by Choose Mbulelo Jolwana known as for all civil actions and functions to be instituted within the magistrates’ courts to offer impact to the constitutional proper of entry to justice.

Simpler and less expensive to mount a defence


Disputes over credit score agreements should now be argued in magistrates’ courts, the place the allowable scale of authorized prices are a fraction of that within the excessive courtroom. Clients being sued by the banks can argue their very own instances with out authorized illustration in magistrates’ courts and won’t get lumbered with large authorized payments from the opposing facet ought to they lose the case.

The total bench was requested by the Choose President of the Jap Cape Excessive Court docket in Grahamstown to deliberate on a number of instances involving Nedbank, Commonplace Financial institution, Ford Credit score and Wesbank. All the instances concerned unopposed issues introduced by the lenders searching for default judgment towards purchasers. The Choose President requested the total bench to contemplate why the excessive courtroom ought to entertain issues that correctly belong within the magistrates’ courts.

The banks argued – with out success – that in issues the place the magistrates and excessive courts had “concurrent jurisdiction”, forcing them to carry issues to the magistrates’ courts would infringe their proper of entry to justice. The judges didn’t agree.


The Black Attorneys Affiliation and the minister of justice and correctional companies have been admitted as associates of the courtroom.

‘Main victory’

Shopper lawyer Leonard Benjamin says the judgment is a significant victory for customers and tilts the scales of justice of their route. “A majority of foreclosures and repossessions are unopposed, which permits banks to get judgments which might be based mostly on faulty instances and incorrect data.


“I consider that the primary the explanation why customers don’t oppose the banks are due to their use of the excessive courtroom. They’re inaccessible as a result of they’ve unfamiliar procedures, are intimidating and positioned distant.”

Most customers don’t put up a combat towards the banks, believing they don’t have a defence. However that is incorrect. 

Benjamin says in terms of foreclosures, not opposing a declare by the financial institution is a waiver of your constitutional rights. “The place your main residence is underneath menace, even in case you are in default, the courtroom should contemplate related circumstances earlier than granting the financial institution an order that can permit it to promote your property to get well its debt. The courtroom should give particular consideration to how granting the judgment will impression on youngsters, the aged, the sick and disabled, and women-headed households.


“The courtroom doesn’t know what your circumstances are except you inform the courtroom. Hopefully, for customers who defend themselves it might be simpler and fewer intimidating to seem within the magistrates’ courts.”  

The NCA got here into impact in 2007 with the clear intention that each one NCA issues (credit score agreements) must be handled within the magistrates’ courts. The Magistrates’ Court docket Act was amended to permit all NCA issues, whatever the quantity claimed, to be heard within the decrease somewhat than the upper courts.

Nonetheless, a number of the banks argued efficiently that nothing within the NCA amounted to an specific ousting of the excessive courts’ jurisdiction.


Though they may simply have introduced foreclosures and repossessions within the magistrates’ courts, for greater than a decade the banks sued customers within the excessive courts. There’s little doubt that this was a technique employed to make it as intimidating and costly for customers to oppose the litigation.

The reason being not tough to fathom: the banks’ legal professionals make little or no cash arguing instances within the decrease courtroom.

They keep away from it just like the plague. They’re, as we beforehand reported, preventing for his or her lunch.


Learn: Lawyers fight for their lunch in abusive lending case

Indicative of that is the banks’ favorite ploy of suing customers dwelling in Johannesburg within the Pretoria Excessive Court docket. For these defending themselves, this provides a layer of pointless and unwelcome expense: a spherical journey simply to serve and file courtroom proceedings prices between R200 and R300 every time. That is fairly other than the prices of hiring legal professionals, which left customers in a dilemma: pay the legal professionals’ charges or attempt to compensate for the bond and forestall authorized proceedings?

Benjamin says the excessive prices of mounting a authorized defence means most instances involving the banks go undefended. After this latest judgment, that ought to now not be a difficulty.


“Late final yr a bench of the Pretoria Excessive Court docket appeared to have introduced an finish to the follow of banks suing within the excessive courts somewhat than the magistrates’ courts,” says Benjamin. “Holding that it was an abuse of the courts and denied customers entry to justice, the courtroom gave a directive that after February 2, 2019, all NCA issues must be introduced within the magistrates’ courts except the financial institution had been granted go away to sue within the excessive courtroom, as an example, if the problems have been complicated.”

This proved to be a pyrrhic victory as banks continued suing their clients within the larger courts, however with out the courts’ go away. It was enterprise as typical, with Johannesburg clients being sued within the Pretoria Excessive Court docket as a substitute of the Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court docket.

The Grahamstown judgment will make this harder.