National Consumer Tribunal Annual Report 2011/12 National Consumer Tribunal 2011-12 | Page 44

Adjudication (continued)
The Tribunal held that section 101(1)(d)(l) of the NCA states that the interest charged must not
exceed the maximum prescribed rate. Therefore, an agreement to pay 36,60% and 39% interest
per annum constitutes an illegal agreement.
The Tribunal further held that the agreement is contrary to the in duplum rule. The Tribunal referred
to the judgment of NCR v Nedbank Limited and others 2009 (6) SA 295 (GNP) where the court
held, amongst others, that once the total charges referred to in section 101(1)(b) to (g) equal the
amount of the unpaid balance, payments made by a consumer thereafter during the period of
default do not have the effect of permitting the credit provider to charge further interest while such
default persists. It further held that the amount which African Bank will ultimately receive through
the consent agreement is clearly in excess of what it is entitled to receive taking into account the
statutory in duplum rule.
9. In the matter between Reabetswe Cornelia Khonzapi Sebona and Nedbank Ltd,
Wesb