UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
COL3704: Consumer Law
Assignment 1 – Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
COL3704
Module Code:
Consumer Law
Module Name:
Assignment 1
Assignment Number:
27 March 2026
Due Date:
20
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for COL3704 – UNISA 2026
, UNISA | COL3704 Assignment 1 – Semester 1, 2026
Section A: National Credit Act 34 of 2005
Question 1
The following statements are taken from prescribed cases in this module. Each citation and
the relevant paragraph from which the statement is drawn are set out below.
1.1 “A major overhaul of previous credit legislation was essential. This was also necessary
because low-income consumers relied increasingly on commercial credit and many were be-
coming swamped with debt.”
This statement is taken from:
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (CCT 98/11) [2012] ZACC
11; 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC); 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC) (7 June 2012) – paragraph 40.1
1.2 “For just as the Act seeks to protect consumers, so too does it seek to promote a compet-
itive, sustainable, efficient and effective credit industry.”
This statement is taken from:
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (CCT 98/11) [2012] ZACC
11; 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC); 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC) (7 June 2012) – paragraph 40.2
Key Distinction
Both statements 1.1 and 1.2 appear in the same paragraph of Sebola – paragraph 40.
The court in that paragraph traced the legislative history of credit regulation in South
Africa, noting the deficiencies of the pre-2005 regime and the dual purpose of the
National Credit Act 34 of 2005: protecting vulnerable consumers while simultaneously
promoting a healthy, competitive credit market. The two objectives are not in conflict;
the Act treats them as mutually reinforcing.
1.3 “It is universally accepted that money lending transactions are susceptible to abuse
1
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (CCT 98/11) [2012] ZACC 11; 2012 (5) SA
142 (CC); 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC) para 40.
2
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (n 1) para 40. The court confirmed that
the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 does not exist solely to shield consumers; it equally pursues a credit mar-
ket that is fair, competitive, and functional. The balancing of consumer and credit provider interests is central
to the Act’s scheme.
Page 2 of 14
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
COL3704: Consumer Law
Assignment 1 – Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
COL3704
Module Code:
Consumer Law
Module Name:
Assignment 1
Assignment Number:
27 March 2026
Due Date:
20
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for COL3704 – UNISA 2026
, UNISA | COL3704 Assignment 1 – Semester 1, 2026
Section A: National Credit Act 34 of 2005
Question 1
The following statements are taken from prescribed cases in this module. Each citation and
the relevant paragraph from which the statement is drawn are set out below.
1.1 “A major overhaul of previous credit legislation was essential. This was also necessary
because low-income consumers relied increasingly on commercial credit and many were be-
coming swamped with debt.”
This statement is taken from:
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (CCT 98/11) [2012] ZACC
11; 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC); 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC) (7 June 2012) – paragraph 40.1
1.2 “For just as the Act seeks to protect consumers, so too does it seek to promote a compet-
itive, sustainable, efficient and effective credit industry.”
This statement is taken from:
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (CCT 98/11) [2012] ZACC
11; 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC); 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC) (7 June 2012) – paragraph 40.2
Key Distinction
Both statements 1.1 and 1.2 appear in the same paragraph of Sebola – paragraph 40.
The court in that paragraph traced the legislative history of credit regulation in South
Africa, noting the deficiencies of the pre-2005 regime and the dual purpose of the
National Credit Act 34 of 2005: protecting vulnerable consumers while simultaneously
promoting a healthy, competitive credit market. The two objectives are not in conflict;
the Act treats them as mutually reinforcing.
1.3 “It is universally accepted that money lending transactions are susceptible to abuse
1
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (CCT 98/11) [2012] ZACC 11; 2012 (5) SA
142 (CC); 2012 (8) BCLR 785 (CC) para 40.
2
Sebola and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (n 1) para 40. The court confirmed that
the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 does not exist solely to shield consumers; it equally pursues a credit mar-
ket that is fair, competitive, and functional. The balancing of consumer and credit provider interests is central
to the Act’s scheme.
Page 2 of 14
