Abstract

The implementation of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 has undoubtedly created greater consumer protection in South Africa. Unfortunately, the Act is not always clear, and undesirable drafting has resulted in inconsistent interpretation and application. One glaring lacuna in the Act is its failure to define the term ‘supplementary agreement’, leaving it uncertain what types of documents fall within the scope of a supplementary agreement, and whether the Act fully governs such agreements. Another flaw in the National Credit Act is that it is not clear whether contracting parties to a credit agreement can agree to contract out of — ie exclude the applicability of — the provisions of the National Credit Act in a supplementary agreement. This flaw has potentially created room for unscrupulous credit providers to evade the applicability of certain provisions of the Act, or the entire Act, by entering into a supplementary agreement with a consumer. The recent case of Absa Bank Ltd v Serfontein 2025 (3) SA 345 (SCA) addressed some of these issues and highlighted the need to remedy these gaps.