This blog is co-authored by Justine Subramoney, candidate attorney.
In August 2025, the Pretoria High Court reaffirmed that proof of delivery of a notice under section 129 of the National Credit Act is satisfied by written confirmation of postal delivery to the consumer’s chosen address and not actual receipt and knowledge by the consumer. Once delivery is affected, the risk of non-receipt lies with the consumer.
The applicant applied to rescind a default judgment granted against her which confirmed cancellation of her vehicle instalment sale agreement with the respondent credit provider. She claimed to have signed a refinancing agreement with lower instalments than what the respondent had claimed and claimed to have made payments that were ignored by the respondent. She conceded that she may have signed the wrong agreement and did not dispute being in arrears.
The respondent had sent a section 129 notice to notify the applicant that she was in arrears via registered mail to her chosen domicilium address. The post office received the notice on 20 December 2021 and notified the applicant to collect on 11 January 2022. The applicant did not collect the notice and claimed to have never received the notification from the post office. The applicant further argued that the notice was only available for collection for a day before it was dispatched to the post office’s main hub, and that the post office had no longer been delivering parcels since COVID-19.
The court considered the constitutional cases of Sebola and Kubyana which made it clear that the NCA does not guarantee actual receipt of the notice but rather requires that the credit provider take reasonable steps to bring the notice to the consumer’s attention. Once the provider shows that the notice was correctly sent to the consumer’s chosen address and that a notification was issued, the risk of delivery rests with the consumer thereafter. The court in this matter found that the notice was sent to the correct post office as elected by the applicant. The fact that the notice was only retained at the post office for one day before being returned to the main hub did not undermine the respondent’s compliance with the NCA. The court noted that the applicant did not argue that had the notice been available for longer period; the outcome would have been different. The respondent cannot be saddled with the consequences of the post office’s operational decisions, and the respondent had complied with its obligations under s129(1)(a) of the NCA. Accordingly, the applicant’s non-receipt of the section 129 notice did not constitute grounds for recission.
In the result, the court concluded that the respondent had complied with the prescripts of section 129 and thus there was no basis to rescind the judgment under Rule 31(2)(b), Rule 42(1)(a) or the common law. The application was accordingly dismissed with cost.