Amith Kedhar Singh v Motor Finance Corporation, A Division of Nedbank Limited (NCT/94274/2017/141(1)) [2018] ZANCT 102 (19 June 2018)

Amith Kedhar Singh v Motor Finance Corporation, A Division of Nedbank Limited (NCT/94274/2017/141(1)) [2018] ZANCT 102 (19 June 2018)

The Tribunal found that Mr Singh's complaint was prescribed under section 166 of the National Credit Act, as it arose from a credit agreement signed in February 2013 and was lodged more than three years later. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the respondent's Financial Services Provider licence status, as this is regulated by the Financial Services Board, not the NCA. The allegations regarding credit bureau access were unsupported by evidence and, even if true, were not material to the relief sought. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Singh's application had no reasonable prospect of success and was vexatious, warranting a cost order against him. The Tribunal limited the...

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 102
Parties
Applicant: Amith Kedhar Singh; Respondent: Motor Finance Corporation, A Division of Nedbank Limited
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2018
Case Number
NCT/94274/2017/141(1)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal
Outcome
Application for leave to refer the complaint to the Tribunal is refused. Cost order granted against the applicant.
Judges
J Simpson, T Bailey, F Manamela
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Leave to Refer, Prescription, Credit Bureau Inquiry, Cost Order
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure National Credit Act Leave to Refer Prescription Credit Bureau Inquiry Cost Order

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amith Kedhar Singh

Applicant

Motor Finance Corporation, A Division of Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to refer his complaint to the Tribunal under section 141(1)(b) of the National Credit Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's complaint is prescribed under section 166 of the National Credit Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the respondent's Financial Services Provider licence status.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Mr Singh's complaint was prescribed under section 166 of the National Credit Act, as it arose from a credit agreement signed in February 2013 and was lodged more than three years later. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the respondent's Financial Services Provider licence status, as this is regulated by the Financial Services Board, not the NCA. The allegations regarding credit bureau access were unsupported by evidence and, even if true, were not material to the relief sought. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Singh's application had no reasonable prospect of success and was vexatious, warranting a cost order against him. The Tribunal limited the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer the complaint to the Tribunal is refused. Cost order granted against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is refused.
  • A cost order is made against the applicant, limited to a maximum of R5,000 of the respondent's taxed costs, on an attorney and own client scale.