(2) Were the two previously concluded loan agreements, which were considered in connection with the three EDA amounts, taken into account? or one of these amounts, which may reveal that they are credit contracts, exceeds the threshold of R50,000.00 R50,000.00 in effect at the time of the agreements;  On a point raised by the respondent in Limine, he argues that the AoD is a credit contract that submits it to the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (`NCA`). If the Court is not with the respondent on the point of Limine, the respondent challenges the accuracy of the three sums due for the unpaid rents, the ABSA loan and the commission. (d) At the time of the agreement, the credit provider was not registered and this law requires that credit provider be registered. “18 The real question of this appeal is whether the entire Friend Court (fn 1 Friend/Sendal 2015 (1) SA 395 (GP) correctly established that the NCA was only for those in the credit sector and that it did not apply to individual transactions for which loans were granted, regardless of the amount of the amount. The Friend Para 28 court found that, although it is a credit contract within the meaning of the NCA, the lender is not necessarily required to register in the form of S 40 (1) (b). For this interpretation, the Tribunal relied on the NCA`s S 3 objective of “promoting and promoting the social and economic well-being of South Africans” in order to achieve “a fair, transparent, competitive, sustainable, accountable, efficient, efficient and accessible and consumer credit market.” In this context, the Tribunal found that the provisions of the NCA were intended to regulate those involved in the credit sector and individuals who often lend and do not apply to one-off transactions.  With respect to the interpretation of Section 4, paragraph 2, points b) and (iv) and 8.4)f), of the NCA, it is concluded that the commercial relationship between the parties was similar to that of a financial institution and a consumer wishing to enter into a credit contract. The nature of the relationship does not fit within the scope of one of the exclusions in section 4, paragraph 2, points b) and (iv) of the AAFC. 2. The agreement attached to the Declaration of Constitution as Appendix B is declared unlawful for non-compliance with Section 40 (1) of the National Credit Act, Act 34 of 2005, prior to its amendment by the National Credit Amendment Act, Act 19 of 2014. “40 (1) A person must apply as a lender if –  The credit contract, the AoD, is therefore declared illegal. However, the applicant would leave no recourse, since he retains his right to demand restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment. This was confirmed in the National Credit Regulator/Opperman e.a.
2013 (1) SA 1 (CC), where the Constitutional Court quashed, at paragraph 89, paragraph 5, point c), the NCA in letter 88: , the following allegations in the affidavit regarding the point of the limine.