UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law
⋄
ASSIGNMENT 1
Semester 1, 2026
⋄
Module Code: COL3704
Module Name: Consumer Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 1
Due Date: 27 March 2026
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Unique Number: [Unique Number]
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for COL3704
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | COL3704 Assignment 1 — Semester 1, 2026
Section A: National Credit Act 34 of 2005
Question 1: Case Citations and Relevant Paragraphs
The four statements below are drawn from prescribed case law for COL3704. Each is identi-
fied by its full citation and the paragraph(s) from which the statement originates.
1.1 Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC);
[2012] ZACC 11; 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC), paragraph [40].
At paragraph [40], the court observed that a comprehensive overhaul of the credit legislation
that existed before the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 was indispensable. This was so be-
cause low-income consumers were turning to commercial credit in growing numbers and a
significant portion of them were drowning in unmanageable debt as a result.1
1.2 Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC);
[2012] ZACC 11; 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC), paragraph [41].
At paragraph [41], the court noted the dual purpose of the Act: that just as the Act seeks to
protect consumers, so too does it seek to promote a competitive, sustainable, efficient and ef-
fective credit industry. Consumer protection and a well-functioning credit market are treated
as complementary rather than competing objectives.2
1.3 AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2007 (1) SA 343 (CC); [2006] ZACC 9; 2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC), paragraphs [5]–[6].
At paragraphs [5] and [6], Yacoob J stated that it is universally accepted that money lend-
ing transactions are susceptible to abuse mainly because borrowers are usually in a much
weaker position than lenders. Moneylenders can therefore easily exploit this vulnerability of
the borrower, and some have been guilty of serious impropriety so frequently as to give rise to
considerable concern.3
1.4 Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC); [2014] ZACC 1; 2014 (4)
BCLR 400 (CC), paragraphs [41]–[54].
1
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC) para [40].
2
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC) para [41].
3
AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another 2007 (1) SA 343 (CC)
paras [5]–[6].
Page 1 of 10
College of Law
⋄
ASSIGNMENT 1
Semester 1, 2026
⋄
Module Code: COL3704
Module Name: Consumer Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 1
Due Date: 27 March 2026
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Unique Number: [Unique Number]
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for COL3704
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | COL3704 Assignment 1 — Semester 1, 2026
Section A: National Credit Act 34 of 2005
Question 1: Case Citations and Relevant Paragraphs
The four statements below are drawn from prescribed case law for COL3704. Each is identi-
fied by its full citation and the paragraph(s) from which the statement originates.
1.1 Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC);
[2012] ZACC 11; 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC), paragraph [40].
At paragraph [40], the court observed that a comprehensive overhaul of the credit legislation
that existed before the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 was indispensable. This was so be-
cause low-income consumers were turning to commercial credit in growing numbers and a
significant portion of them were drowning in unmanageable debt as a result.1
1.2 Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC);
[2012] ZACC 11; 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC), paragraph [41].
At paragraph [41], the court noted the dual purpose of the Act: that just as the Act seeks to
protect consumers, so too does it seek to promote a competitive, sustainable, efficient and ef-
fective credit industry. Consumer protection and a well-functioning credit market are treated
as complementary rather than competing objectives.2
1.3 AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2007 (1) SA 343 (CC); [2006] ZACC 9; 2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC), paragraphs [5]–[6].
At paragraphs [5] and [6], Yacoob J stated that it is universally accepted that money lend-
ing transactions are susceptible to abuse mainly because borrowers are usually in a much
weaker position than lenders. Moneylenders can therefore easily exploit this vulnerability of
the borrower, and some have been guilty of serious impropriety so frequently as to give rise to
considerable concern.3
1.4 Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC); [2014] ZACC 1; 2014 (4)
BCLR 400 (CC), paragraphs [41]–[54].
1
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC) para [40].
2
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC) para [41].
3
AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another 2007 (1) SA 343 (CC)
paras [5]–[6].
Page 1 of 10
