Davids and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Others (NCT/67822/2016/165(1)(P)NCA) [2017] ZANCT 52 (4 January 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZANCT 52
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- H Devraj, F Manamela, P Beck
- Case number
- NCT/67822/2016/165(1)(P)NCA
More details
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- H Devraj, F Manamela, P Beck
- Case number
- NCT/67822/2016/165(1)(P)NCA
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the applicants and respondents were properly notified of the hearing date, time, and venue. In accordance with Rule 24 of the National Consumer Tribunal Regulations, the presiding member was satisfied that the requirements for notification were met. As neither the applicants nor any respondents appeared or were represented at the hearing, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for variation of the debt re-arrangement order. The dismissal was formalized on record, and the applicants were informed of their right to refile the application.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for non-appearance; applicants may refile.
Orders
- The application lodged in terms of Section 165 of the National Credit Act is dismissed.
- The applicants may refile the application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Carel Barend Jacobus Davids
ApplicantHeather Cecelia Davids
ApplicantAbsa Bank Ltd
RespondentAfrican Bank Limited
RespondentDirect Axis (SA) Pty Ltd
RespondentFinchoice (Pty) Ltd
RespondentFoschini Retail Group (Pty) Ltd
RespondentMFC a division of Nedbank Limited
RespondentNedbank Limited
RespondentRCS Loan
RespondentSA Home Loans (Pty) Ltd
RespondentSanlam Personal Loans (Pty) Ltd
RespondentStandard Bank of South Africa Limited
RespondentToyota Financial Services (SA) Limited
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Application for Variation of Debt Re Arrangement Order; Hearing Dismissed for Non Appearance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application to vary the debt re-arrangement order should be considered in the absence of the parties.
- 02
Whether the parties were properly notified of the hearing date, time, and venue.
- 03
Whether the application should be dismissed for non-appearance.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought to vary a previously granted debt re-arrangement order, claiming that seven credit providers were omitted from the initial agreement, despite acceptance letters being included in the original application. No further argument was presented due to non-appearance.
- Respondent
- No argument was presented by any respondent, as none appeared at the hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 24 of the National Consumer Tribunal Regulations
If an applicant fails to attend or be represented at a hearing, the presiding member may dismiss the matter by issuing a written ruling, provided the party was properly notified.
- 02
Rule 24(2) of the National Consumer Tribunal Regulations
Proper notification of the date, time, and venue of proceedings is a prerequisite for dismissal for non-appearance.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the applicants and respondents were properly notified of the hearing date, time, and venue. In accordance with Rule 24 of the National Consumer Tribunal Regulations, the presiding member was satisfied that the requirements for notification were met. As neither the applicants nor any respondents appeared or were represented at the hearing, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for variation of the debt re-arrangement order. The dismissal was formalized on record, and the applicants were informed of their right to refile the application.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that the applicants may refile the application if they so choose.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for non-appearance; applicants may refile.
- The application lodged in terms of Section 165 of the National Credit Act is dismissed.
- The applicants may refile the application.
Source and reliance status
National Consumer Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
National Consumer Tribunal
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN
THE NATIONAL
CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
HELD
IN CENTURION
Case Number: NCT/67822/2016/165(1)(P)NCA
In the matter between:
CAREL
BAREND JACOBUS
DAVIDS FIRST
APPLICANT
ID NUMBER: [6...]
HEATHER
CECELIA
DAVIDS
SECOND APPLICANT
ID NUMBER:[6...]
and
ABSA
BANK
LTD FIRST
RESPONDENT
AFRICAN
BANK
LIMITED
SECOND
RESPONDENT
DIRECT AXIS (SA) PTV LTD
THIRD
RESPONDENT
FINCHOICE (PTV)
LTD
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
FOSCHINIRETAIL GROUP(PTV) LTD
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
MFC
A DIVISION
OF NEDBANK
LIMITED
SIXTHRESPONDENT
NEDBANK
LIMITED
SEVENTH
RESPONDENT
RCS
LOAN
EIGHT
RESPONDENT
SA HOME LOANS (PTV)
LTD
NINTH
RESPONDENT
SANLAM PERSONAL LOANS (PTV)
LTD TENTH
RESPONDENT
STANDARD
BANK OF
SOUTH AFRICA
LIMITED
ELEVENTH
RESPONDENT
TOYOTA
FINANCIAL SERVICES (SA)
LIMITED TWELVETH
RESPONDENT
Coram:
Ms H Devraj - Presiding member
Adv F Manamela - Member
Ms P Beck - Member
Date of hearing
14 December 2016
JUDGEMENT
AND REASONS
APPLICANTS
1. The Applicants are Carel Barend Jacobus Davids, a major male and Heather Cecelia Davids a major female residing in Cape Town
(hereinafter referred to as "the Applicants").
RESPONDENTS
2. The Respondents are ASSA Bank Limited, African Bank Limited, Direct Axis (SA) (Pty) Ltd, Direct Axis (SA) Pty Ltd, Finchoice (Pty) Ltd, Foschini Retail Group (Pty) Ltd, The Motor Finance Corporation (MFC), Nedbank Limited, RCS Loan,SA Home Loans (Pty) Ltd, Sanlam Personal Loans (Ply) Ltd, Standard Bank of South Africa Limited, Toyota Financial Services (SA) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondents").
BACKGROUND
3. During May 2016, the Applicant lodged an application (through registered debt counsellor Ian Eugene Romer Wason) with the Tribunal
in terms of Section 86(8) of the Act to have a debt re-arrangement agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal.
4. The debt re-arrangement agreement was confirmed as an order of the Tribunal on 21 September 2016 as per case number NCT/44663/2016/138(1
).
5. During October 2016, the Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal in terms of Section 165(1) of the Act to have the order granted on 21 September 2016 to be varied.
6. The basis of the Application is that the Applicant omitted to include 7 of the credit providers, as part of the debt re-arrangement
agreement. However, the acceptance letters were included as part of the initial application.
7. On the date of the hearing there was no appearance by the Applicant or the Respondents.
CONSIDERATION
OF THE APPLICATION
8. As stated above there was no appearance by the Applicant or any representative on the date of the hearing.
9. Rule 24 of the National Consumer Tribunal Regulations states the following:
"Nonappearance
24.(1) If a party to a matter fails to attend or be represented at any hearing or any proceedings, and that party-
(a) is the applicant, the presiding member may dismiss the matter by issuing a
written ruling; or
(b) is not the applicant, the presiding member may-
(i) continue with the proceedings in the absence of that party; or
(ii) adjourn the hearing to a later date
(2) The Presiding member must be satisfied that the party had been properly notified of the date, time and venue of the proceedings, before making any decision in terms of subrule (1)
(3) If a matter is dismissed, the Registrar must send a copy of the ruling to the parties. "
10. The notice of set down was sent to all the parties by the Registrar's office via e-mail on 29 November 2016.
11. At the time the matter was called by the Tribunal panel, there was no appearance by any of the parties.
12. The Presiding member of the Tribunal was satisfied that the parties were properly notified of the date, time and venue for the
proceedings.
13. The application was then formally dismissed by the Tribunal on record.
ORDER
14. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order:
14.1 The application lodged in terms of Section 165 of the Act is hereby
dismissed.
14.2 The Applicant can refile the application.
DATED ONTHIS 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
[signed]
Ms H Devraj Member
Adv FManamela (Presiding member) and Ms P Beck concurring
Authorised for issue by National Consumer Tribunal
Case Number. NCT/67822/2016/165
Date. 2017/01/04
CCYY
I MM I DD
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.