Navigating Reckless Lending: Insights from Chaity Investments CC v Schoombie Case


The recent case of Chaity Investments CC v Schoombie sheds light on the obligations credit providers bear under the National Credit Act, specifically addressing the consequences of reckless lending. This article explores the implications of the case, emphasizing the duty of credit providers to conduct thorough affordability assessments. We delve into the relevant sections of the National Credit Act, the court’s considerations, and the critical issue of borrower transparency. From the promise of financial assistance to the peril of reckless credit, this case highlights the importance of diligence in lending practices.

Summary of the Case:

Chaity Investments CC v Schoombie (Case Number 26100/2017 Johannesburg High Court, 7 September 2023)


* Chaity Investments and the Schoombies entered into a loan agreement in 2015, supported by an acknowledgment of debt and mortgage bond.
* Prior issues with Absa’s mortgage bond led to property execution, but it’s unclear if Chaity Investments was aware.
* The property was sold to a third party, later offered back to the Schoombies, who secured a loan from Chaity Investments.
* Defaults on monthly payments led to Chaity Investments seeking monetary judgment and property execution.

Legal Dispute:

* The Schoombies claimed reckless credit, asserting Chaity Investments proceeded despite indications they didn’t grasp associated risks.
* Chaity Investments argued it conducted a proper assessment, citing the Schoombies’ financial prospects and understanding.
* Dispute arose over the accuracy of information provided, especially regarding the Schoombies’ financial status and previous defaults.

Legal Issues and Determinations:

* Section 81(2)(a) of the National Credit Act outlines the necessary steps credit providers must take before entering agreements.
* Court examined whether Regulation 23A applied, concluding that even if it didn’t, section 81 requirements persisted.
* Section 82 allows creditors to determine evaluation mechanisms, but it was emphasized that fair assessments are crucial.

Court Decision:

* Court found Chaity Investments lacked sufficient evidence of a fair assessment of the Schoombies’ creditworthiness.
* Emphasis on the borrower’s duty to truthfully answer credit providers’ questions during assessments.
* Lack of thorough questioning by Chaity Investments about the Schoombies’ financial history raised concerns.
* A material dispute of fact existed, requiring oral evidence to determine the accuracy of information provided.

Implications and Considerations:

* The case underscores the responsibility of credit providers to diligently assess borrowers’ creditworthiness.
* Borrowers are obligated to answer questions truthfully, but the primary responsibility lies with credit providers to ask comprehensive questions.
* Superficial assessments, especially regarding previous defaults, may be insufficient in determining creditworthiness.
* The oral evidence will play a crucial role in deciding whether the credit agreement was reckless or if Chaity Investments failed in proper affordability assessment.


The Chaity Investments CC v Schoombie case reinforces the significance of credit providers adhering to the National Credit Act’s provisions and conducting thorough affordability assessments. The court’s emphasis on both the responsibility of credit providers and the duty of borrowers to provide accurate information highlights the delicate balance required in lending practices. As the case progresses to oral argument, its outcome will undoubtedly shape the landscape of credit agreements, serving as a critical precedent for future cases. Credit providers, borrowers, and legal observers alike will closely watch the unfolding developments, anticipating insights that will contribute to a more informed and responsible credit ecosystem.

Click to view our Website Disclaimer