Buunk v Wesbank, A Division of First Rand Bank Ltd (NCT/6827/2012/128(1)(P)NCA) [2013] ZANCT 20 (27 June 2013)

Buunk v Wesbank, A Division of First Rand Bank Ltd (NCT/6827/2012/128(1)(P)NCA) [2013] ZANCT 20 (27 June 2013)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement under section 128(1) of the National Credit Act, as she had not unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the disputed sale of goods with the Respondent or through alternative dispute resolution prior to approaching the Tribunal. The communications and actions cited by the Applicant occurred prior to the sale and did not constitute an attempt to resolve the dispute regarding the sale itself. The Tribunal held that the application was premature and dismissed it without considering the substantive merits of the review of the sale. Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's answering affidavit was granted...

Citation
[2013] ZANCT 20
Parties
Applicant: Liza Buunk; Respondent: Wesbank, A Division of First Rand Bank Limited
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2013
Case Number
NCT/6827/2012/128(1)(P)NCA
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.
Judges
J Maseko, L Best, X May
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Jurisdiction, Condonation, Review of Sale of Goods
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance National Credit Act Jurisdiction Condonation Review of Sale of Goods

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liza Buunk

Applicant

Wesbank, A Division of First Rand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should grant condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit by the Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the disputed sale of goods with the Respondent or through alternative dispute resolution before approaching the Tribunal, as required by section 128(1) of the National Credit Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter or if the application is premature.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement under section 128(1) of the National Credit Act, as she had not unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the disputed sale of goods with the Respondent or through alternative dispute resolution prior to approaching the Tribunal. The communications and actions cited by the Applicant occurred prior to the sale and did not constitute an attempt to resolve the dispute regarding the sale itself. The Tribunal held that the application was premature and dismissed it without considering the substantive merits of the review of the sale. Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's answering affidavit was granted...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Applicant’s application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.