Dumas v Concord Group CC (NCT/324897/2024/148(1)) [2024] ZANCT 38 (26 September 2024)

Dumas v Concord Group CC (NCT/324897/2024/148(1)) [2024] ZANCT 38 (26 September 2024)

The Tribunal found that the first complaint, relating to the product supplied in 2013, is time-barred under section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, as more than three years had elapsed since the act giving rise to the complaint. The Tribunal has no discretion to extend this statutory time bar. However, the second complaint, concerning the respondent's continuing supply of the product until its recall in October 2021, is governed by section 116(1)(b), which allows complaints to be referred within three years after the conduct ceased. The applicant filed his application within this period, so the second complaint is not time-barred. The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a...

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 38
Parties
Appellant: Andre Marlon Dumas; Respondent: Concord Group CC
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2024
Case Number
NCT/324897/2024/148(1)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Filing of Leave to Refer Application
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld. Condonation for late filing of leave to refer application granted for the second complaint; dismissed for the first complaint.
Judges
Z Ntuli, MC Peenze, S Mthembu
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Consumer Protection Act, Product Liability, Statutory Time Bar, Leave to Refer
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Administrative Law Condonation Late Filing Consumer Protection Act Product Liability Statutory Time Bar +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Marlon Dumas

Appellant

Concord Group CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Filing of Leave to Refer Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing condonation for the late filing of the applicant's leave to refer application regarding two complaints.
  2. 2 Whether the first complaint is time-barred under section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the second complaint, relating to a continuing practice, is time-barred under section 116(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the first complaint, relating to the product supplied in 2013, is time-barred under section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, as more than three years had elapsed since the act giving rise to the complaint. The Tribunal has no discretion to extend this statutory time bar. However, the second complaint, concerning the respondent's continuing supply of the product until its recall in October 2021, is governed by section 116(1)(b), which allows complaints to be referred within three years after the conduct ceased. The applicant filed his application within this period, so the second complaint is not time-barred. The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld. Condonation for late filing of leave to refer application granted for the second complaint; dismissed for the first complaint.

Orders

  • The appeal application concerning the first complaint is dismissed.
  • The appeal application concerning the second complaint is granted.