A R2.35 million Porsche 911 Carrera S Coupé has become the unlikely centrepiece of a Supreme Court of Appeal battle involving a Sandton family health centre and Capitec.
- The R2.35 million Porsche finance deal
- Capitec demanded payment
- A proposed R500,000 payment failed to resolve the dispute
- The clinic entered business rescue
- High Court initially sided with the clinic
- Supreme Court of Appeal overturns the finding
- Why business rescue did not save the Porsche
- Porsche must be returned to Capitec
The dispute revolved around a simple but important legal question: what happens to an asset financed by a bank when a company defaults on its payments and subsequently enters business rescue?
In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the clinic’s business-rescue protection did not give it the right to keep the Porsche because the finance agreement had already been validly cancelled before the rescue process began.
The court consequently ordered the vehicle to be returned to Capitec and awarded costs against the company.
The R2.35 million Porsche finance deal
Capitec financed R2.115 million of the Porsche’s purchase price for Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston under an instalment sale agreement concluded in September 2022.
The 2020 Porsche 911 Carrera S Coupé had a purchase price of approximately R2.35 million.
Under the agreement, Ubuntu was required to make 59 monthly instalments of R31,638.68, followed by a final payment of R634,500 in the 60th month.
Capitec retained ownership of the vehicle until the financing obligations had been settled in full.
The arrangement subsequently unravelled after the clinic fell behind on its payments.
Capitec demanded payment
By October 2023, Capitec had issued Ubuntu with a letter of demand.
The company was given seven days to settle its arrears or face cancellation of the agreement.
Ubuntu undertook to pay the outstanding amount by 17 November 2023, but the payment was not made.
Capitec cancelled the agreement on that date and sought to take possession of the Porsche.
According to the judgment, the bank’s attorney, accompanied by Capitec representatives, went to the health centre’s premises to recover the vehicle.
The clinic’s director, Ridwaan Adams, had paid R100,000 towards the arrears but refused to release the Porsche or disclose where it was located.
A proposed R500,000 payment failed to resolve the dispute
Capitec subsequently gave Ubuntu until 21 November 2023 to raise funds and propose a settlement.
At a meeting that day, Adams offered to pay R500,000 by 28 November to settle the arrears.
Further discussions were proposed around repaying the remaining debt over six months.
Ubuntu also agreed to arrange for the Porsche to be viewed.
According to the judgment, neither undertaking was fulfilled.
The dispute then took another turn.
The clinic entered business rescue
On 29 November 2023, Ubuntu adopted a resolution to enter business rescue.
The move became central to the legal battle because companies entering business rescue generally receive temporary protection from creditors while efforts are made to restructure their financial affairs.
Capitec, however, argued that the protection could not revive Ubuntu’s right to possess the Porsche after the finance agreement had already been cancelled.
When a Capitec-appointed auctioneer arrived on 1 December 2023 to collect the vehicle, Adams again refused access and maintained that a court order was required.
High Court initially sided with the clinic
Capitec approached the High Court in December 2023 seeking the return of the Porsche.
The application was dismissed in February 2025.
In the meantime, Ubuntu’s business rescue had ended in liquidation on 24 May 2024.
The High Court found that Ubuntu remained in lawful possession of the vehicle and that the business-rescue moratorium protected it from enforcement action.
The court interpreted unlawful possession as involving conduct such as theft, fraud or robbery, rather than simply losing a contractual right to retain an asset.
Capitec appealed the decision.
Supreme Court of Appeal overturns the finding
The Supreme Court of Appeal took a different view.
Judge of Appeal Fayeeza Kathree-Setiloane, sitting with four other judges who concurred, found that the business-rescue protection did not extend to the Porsche in these circumstances.
The crucial issue was the timing of the cancellation.
Capitec had validly cancelled the instalment sale agreement before Ubuntu entered business rescue.
That meant the clinic’s contractual right to possess the Porsche had already ended when the business-rescue process began.
The appeal court therefore rejected the High Court’s interpretation of unlawful possession.
Why business rescue did not save the Porsche
The judgment makes an important distinction between a company’s protection during business rescue and its right to retain property belonging to another party.
Business rescue can impose a moratorium on legal proceedings and enforcement measures, giving a financially distressed company an opportunity to restructure.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that this protection did not give Ubuntu a continuing right to possess an asset after its contractual entitlement to do so had ended.
The court concluded that Ubuntu was therefore in unlawful possession of the Porsche.
That entitled Capitec to bring proceedings seeking the vehicle’s return.
Porsche must be returned to Capitec
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld Capitec’s appeal.
Ubuntu was ordered to return the Porsche immediately, with costs awarded against the company.
The case ultimately turned on the sequence of events:
- Ubuntu entered into the Porsche finance agreement with Capitec.
- The clinic fell behind on its instalments.
- Capitec issued a demand for payment.
- The outstanding amount was not settled.
- Capitec cancelled the agreement on 17 November 2023.
- Attempts to recover the vehicle were unsuccessful.
- Ubuntu entered business rescue on 29 November 2023.
- The business rescue later ended in liquidation.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the vehicle had already become unlawfully possessed before the business-rescue protection took effect.
The ruling ultimately turned a R2.35 million Porsche into the centre of a significant dispute over the limits of business-rescue protection and a financier’s right to recover an asset after a contract has been cancelled.
