Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

National Consumer Tribunal

Davids and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Others (NCT/67822/2016/165(1)(P)NCA) [2017] ZANCT 52 (4 January 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Applicant

Heather Cecelia Davids

Applicant

Absa Bank Ltd

Respondent

African Bank Limited

Respondent

Direct Axis (SA) Pty Ltd

Respondent

Finchoice (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Foschini Retail Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

MFC a division of Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

RCS Loan

Respondent

SA Home Loans (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sanlam Personal Loans (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Toyota Financial Services (SA) Limited

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Application for Variation of Debt Re Arrangement Order; Hearing Dismissed for Non Appearance

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

National Consumer Tribunal

Judgment

[2017] ZANCT 52

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

National Credit Act 34 of 2005

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

National Consumer Tribunal Regulations

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.