Western Cape High Court orders unemployed man to return VW Polo after five-year legal dispute
High Court rules unemployed man must return Volkswagen Polo after protracted legal struggle.
Image: File
A Western Cape man has been ordered by the High Court to return his 2012 Volkswagen Polo after a five-year legal dispute with FirstRand Auto Receivables (RF) Limited.
Acting Judge Yakea granted summary judgment in favour of FirstRand Auto, which sought to cancel the instalment sale agreement and reclaim the vehicle from Kenneth Langeveldt, who is currently unemployed.
The legal battle began in January 2017 when Langeveldt entered into an instalment sale agreement with WesBank for R198 235, committing to 60 monthly payments of R3 303, with ownership remaining with the bank until the final payment.
Langeveldt stopped payments in June 2020 following his job loss, accumulating over R96 000 in arrears.
He informed the bank of his situation and contested his dismissal in the Labour Court, while also submitting a claim to his credit insurance policy with Hollard Insurance, which was contingent on the outcome of his labour dispute.
The dispute was later referred to both the Insurance Ombudsman and the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman ultimately found that Langeveldt’s contractual obligations to the bank remained unchanged regardless of his employment dispute or insurance claim.
FirstRand Auto sent a notice in October 2022, giving Langeveldt an opportunity to remedy the default. When he failed to do so, summons was issued in April 2023.
In his defence, Langeveldt argued that the bank had engaged in "reckless lending" by granting a 59-year-old a loan that he claimed spanned ten years, despite him only holding a five-year employment contract.
He claimed the loan was unlawful under the Matrimonial Property Act because his wife, who received a disability grant, never provided mandatory written consent for the credit agreement. Additionally, Langeveldt sought R2 million in damages from the financial institution, alleging that the aggressive litigation caused severe harassment, family distress, and psychological hardship.
Judge Yakea examined each argument in detail and rejected them all.
The court found that an affordability assessment was conducted, confirming Langeveldt was employed and able to afford the vehicle when the agreement was signed. The judge rejected Langeveldt’s claim that the loan extended over ten years, affirming that the contract was for five years and a proper assessment was done at the start.
The court's analysis of the missing spousal consent raised notable legal nuances. Judge Yake agreed that because Langeveldt was married in community of property, the bank's failure to secure his wife's signature technically rendered the underlying credit contract void and unenforceable. However, the judge clarified that the invalidity of a credit agreement does not magically erase a bank’s property rights or allow a consumer to keep a vehicle for free.
Furthermore, Langeveldt’s attempt to claim R2 million in damages was dismissed because he had not properly pleaded a legal basis for the claim in his counterclaim.
Moreover, the court dismissed the R2 million counterclaim and ordered Langeveldt to immediately return the Volkswagen Polo and pay the legal costs of the application