‘I Didn’t Know I Had Insurance’: Gauteng Man Fights Absa Over R16,000 Debt on Mystery Policy

A Gauteng man is heading to trial after the South Gauteng High Court dismissed Absa Bank’s application for summary judgment in a dispute over a financed vehicle, ruling that the customer had raised a defence honest enough to warrant a full hearing.

The case centres on a 2018 Mazda 3 1.6 Dynamic financed under a written instalment sale agreement in February 2021. Absa sought confirmation of the agreement’s cancellation and the return of the vehicle, claiming the owner, Thulani Mbucane, had fallen into arrears and owed over R16,600 by November 2023.

But Mbucane’s defence raises a striking question: what happens when a bank insures your carand you never know about it?

The Dispute

Mbucane does not dispute that he signed the finance agreement. What he disputes is the debt itself. He claims he honoured all his monthly instalments. The alleged arrears, he argues, were made up of insurance premiums added to his accountpremiums for a policy he never knew existed.

According to his plea, Mbucane was unaware he was obliged to insure the vehicle for the duration of the agreement. He says the bank never informed him it had taken out insurance on his behalf and never provided any policy documents.

The consequences were tangible. The vehicle was involved in two collisions, but Mbucane did not submit insurance claimsbecause he didn’t know there was insurance to claim from.

He also challenged the certificate of balance relied upon by the bank, arguing it was insufficient without a full statement of account, and denied that a section 129 notice had been properly dispatched in compliance with the National Credit Act.

The Bank’s Position

Absa applied for summary judgmenta mechanism that allows a court to rule without a full trial when there is no genuine dispute over material facts. The bank argued that Mbucane’s plea failed to disclose a bona fide defence and was filed merely to delay proceedings.

The Court’s Ruling

Judge Lebogang Modiba reaffirmed the legal standard: a defendant opposing summary judgment must disclose a bona fide defence with sufficient detail, but is not required to show that the defence is likely to succeed at trial.

While a person who signs a contract is generally presumed to understand its terms, the judge noted that Mbucane had provided a version of events explaining the circumstances. He stated that the dealership’s sales consultant handled the finance application and that he had no direct interaction with the bank. Although he was told the vehicle had to be insured, he believed he could cancel the insurance if he could not afford it.

Judge Modiba found that Mbucane was indeed unaware of an ongoing obligation to insure the vehicleand if the bank failed to inform him that it had taken out insurance on his behalf, this could constitute a legally recognisable defence. The alleged prejudicenot claiming for accident damageadded weight to his case.

While the court held that the bank had complied with its obligations regarding the section 129 notice, this alone was insufficient to dispose of the matter.

What Happens Next

The court dismissed Absa’s application for summary judgment and granted Mbucane leave to defend the action. The case will now proceed to trial, where both sides will have to present full evidence.

For Mbucane, the ruling is a chance to tell his story in fulland to challenge a debt he says he never knew he owed. For Absa, it means a longer road to recovery and a trial that will test the bank’s processes for communicating insurance obligations to customers.

The central questioncan a bank insure a customer’s car and then claim arrears without ever telling the customer?will now be answered in open court.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com