Does section 166 bar reckless credit after three years?

The Free State High Court draws an important distinction between Tribunal complaints and ordinary-court defences.

Reckless credit and section 166

Selected recent authorities and practical implications for debt-review practice.

Nedbank Ltd v Lehasa

Citation: (967/2025) [2026] ZAFSHC 75 (10 April 2026)

Authority level: High Court — Free State Division; not reportable

Why this development matters

Lehasa is a significant 2026 development because it draws an important distinction between the section 166 time bar applicable to a complaint to the Tribunal/consumer court and a reckless-credit defence raised in ordinary civil litigation.

Background

• After voluntary surrender of a vehicle, the bank sued for the remaining shortfall.

• The consumer raised reckless credit as a defence and counterclaim.

• The bank argued, among other things, that section 166 barred the reckless-credit issue because more than three years had elapsed since the agreement was concluded.

What the court decided

• The court rejected the bank’s section 166 argument in that context. It held that section 166 concerns referral of a complaint to the Tribunal or a consumer court; the matter before it was a defence to a contractual claim in a court of law.

• The consumer nevertheless lost on reckless credit because the evidence did not establish the financial position at the time the agreement was concluded. Later payslips and bank statements were insufficient.

• Summary judgment for the shortfall was granted.

Practical implications

• Do not treat section 166 as though it extinguishes every reckless-credit issue after three years. The forum and procedural route matter.

• Equally, Lehasa is an evidential warning: a legally available defence still fails without contemporaneous evidence.

Key statutory provisions: NCA ss 80–83, 86 and 166.

Related authority: FirstRand Bank Ltd v Ludick [2020] ZAGPPHC 821; Roopal NO v Mphephu [2022] ZAGPJHC 1160.

Primary source: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAFSHC/2026/75.html