Absa Bank Limited v Sager and Others (NCT/79160/2017/165) [2017] ZANCT 106 (21 September 2017)

Absa Bank Limited v Sager and Others (NCT/79160/2017/165) [2017] ZANCT 106 (21 September 2017)

The Tribunal found that the debt review proposal, including the reduced interest rates, was expressly accepted by the applicant and made an order by consent. There was no evidence of error, omission, or mistake common to all parties in the granting of the order. The Tribunal distinguished the Jones judgment, noting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZANCT 106
Parties
Applicant: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: Ben Sager; Respondent: Nonhlanhla Corah Nxele; Respondent: Sifiso Lucky Mthethwa; Respondent: Capitec Bank Limited; Respondent: Direct Axis (SA) (Pty) Ltd, Agent for Call Direct; Respondent: Direct Axis (SA) (Pty) Ltd, on behalf of Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Edgars, on behalf of Edcon (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Finchoice (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: First National Bank, a division of Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Foschini Retail Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Motor Finance Corporation (MFC), a division of Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Southern View Finance UK Limited t/a Capfin; Respondent: Truworths Limited; Respondent: Woolworths (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2017
Case Number
NCT/79160/2017/165
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Application for Variation or Rescission of Tribunal Order Under Section 165 of the National Credit Act
Outcome
Application to vary the Tribunal's order is refused.
Judges
J Simpson, P Beck, A Potwana
Legal Topics
Debt Review, Consent Order, Variation of Order, Interest Rate Reduction, Default Judgment
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Debt Review Consent Order Variation of Order Interest Rate Reduction Default Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank Limited

Applicant

Ben Sager

Respondent

Nonhlanhla Corah Nxele

Respondent

Sifiso Lucky Mthethwa

Respondent

Capitec Bank Limited

Respondent

Direct Axis (SA) (Pty) Ltd, Agent for Call Direct

Respondent

Direct Axis (SA) (Pty) Ltd, on behalf of Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Edgars, on behalf of Edcon (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Finchoice (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

First National Bank, a division of Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Foschini Retail Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Motor Finance Corporation (MFC), a division of Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Southern View Finance UK Limited t/a Capfin

Respondent

Truworths Limited

Respondent

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Application for Variation or Rescission of Tribunal Order Under Section 165 of the National Credit Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's consent order on debt re-arrangement can be varied or rescinded under Section 165 of the National Credit Act.
  2. 2 Whether the original order was erroneously granted, ambiguous, or made as a result of a mistake common to all parties.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to reduce contractual interest rates by consent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the debt review proposal, including the reduced interest rates, was expressly accepted by the applicant and made an order by consent. There was no evidence of error, omission, or mistake common to all parties in the granting of the order. The Tribunal distinguished the Jones judgment, noting that it applies to Magistrates' Court orders imposed without consent, whereas the Tribunal's process requires express agreement from all credit providers. The applicant failed to provide evidence supporting its claim that the repayments would not satisfy the outstanding balance, despite being given an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the requirements of...

Court Disposition

Application to vary the Tribunal's order is refused.

Orders

  • The application to vary the order is refused.
  • No order as to costs.