“Standard Bank has done all that was required of it by the [National Credit] Act,” it said in its ruling.
Moshomo Kubyana was challenging a high court judgment that he settle an amount owed to Standard Bank for a vehicle, and that it be repossessed.
He claimed he did not receive notices by post that he was in arrears.
In 2007, Kubyana and Standard Bank entered into an agreement for the purchase of a car.
In 2010, Standard Bank sent a notice to Kubyana indicating he was in default of his obligations under the agreement and that it intended approaching a court for debt enforcement.
The notice was sent by registered post. Although two written requests were sent to his home to collect documentation from the post office, Kubyana did not do so.
Five weeks later, the notice was returned to Standard Bank uncollected.
The bank approached the High Court in Pretoria and an order was granted in its favour. The court found that delivery of a notice by registered mail was sufficient, and that Standard Bank had discharged its statutory obligations.
The court reasoned that if Parliament had intended the notice to be personally served, the act would have provided for this.
Kubyana argued in the Constitutional Court that when a notice was returned to the creditor undelivered the creditor had to take further steps before instituting legal proceedings.
Standard Bank argued that delivery of a notice to a nominated address through registered mail was sufficient.