Breytenbach Glass v Den Braven (NCT/21238/2015/75(1)(b)) [2015] ZANCT 47 (12 November 2015)

Breytenbach Glass v Den Braven (NCT/21238/2015/75(1)(b)) [2015] ZANCT 47 (12 November 2015)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act because its annual turnover exceeds the statutory threshold, as conceded by the Applicant. The Tribunal is bound by the Act and cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond what is provided by law. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the requirements for lis alibi pendens are satisfied, as there are pending proceedings in the Roodepoort Magistrate's Court involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The Applicant could have raised its claims as a counterclaim in those proceedings. The Tribunal therefore refused leave to refer the complaint directly and found it had no...

Citation
[2015] ZANCT 47
Parties
Applicant: Breytenbach Glass CC; Respondent: Den Braven S.A
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2015
Case Number
NCT/21238/2015/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint Directly to Tribunal Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act
Outcome
Application for leave to refer complaint directly to the Tribunal refused; Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
Judges
JM Maseko, FK Manamela, Xolela May
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Jurisdiction, Lis Alibi Pendens, Definition of Consumer, Leave to Refer
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Jurisdiction Lis Alibi Pendens Definition of Consumer Leave to Refer

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Breytenbach Glass CC

Applicant

Den Braven S.A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint Directly to Tribunal Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to refer a complaint directly to the Tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant qualifies as a 'consumer' under section 1 and section 5(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act and is entitled to approach the Tribunal.
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings before the Tribunal should be stayed pending the outcome of the Roodepoort Magistrate's Court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act because its annual turnover exceeds the statutory threshold, as conceded by the Applicant. The Tribunal is bound by the Act and cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond what is provided by law. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the requirements for lis alibi pendens are satisfied, as there are pending proceedings in the Roodepoort Magistrate's Court involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The Applicant could have raised its claims as a counterclaim in those proceedings. The Tribunal therefore refused leave to refer the complaint directly and found it had no...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer complaint directly to the Tribunal refused; Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The application for leave to refer a complaint directly to the Tribunal is refused.
  • The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the Applicant is not a consumer as defined in the Act and the requirements of lis alibi pendens have been established.