Greyling v Standard Bank South Africa Limited and Another (NCT/31502/2015/128(1)) [2016] ZANCT 4 (5 April 2016)
The Tribunal found that, due to sequestration, the applicant lacked locus standi and was not represented by the curator appointed to manage his affairs. As a result, the applicant was not properly before the Tribunal. In accordance with Rule 24(1), the Tribunal dismissed the application without considering the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZANCT 4
- Parties
- Applicant: Nicolaas Johannes Greyling; Respondent: Standard Bank South Africa Limited; Respondent: Green Apple Investments (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- NCT/31502/2015/128(1)
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dismissed due to lack of locus standi; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- Diane Terblanche, B Dumisa, P Beck
- Legal Topics
- Locus Standi, Sequestration, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Sale of Immovable Property
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nicolaas Johannes Greyling
Applicant
Standard Bank South Africa Limited
Respondent
Green Apple Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application before the Tribunal after sequestration.
- 2 Whether the Tribunal can consider submissions from an unrepresented sequestrated applicant.
- 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate a section 128(1) application regarding immovable property.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that, due to sequestration, the applicant lacked locus standi and was not represented by the curator appointed to manage his affairs. As a result, the applicant was not properly before the Tribunal. In accordance with Rule 24(1), the Tribunal dismissed the application without considering the merits or jurisdictional arguments. The absence of proper representation was fatal to the application.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed due to lack of locus standi; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- No order is made as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
HELD IN CENTURION
Case number: NCT/31502/2015/128(1)
DATE: 05 APRIL 2016
In the matter between:
NJ GREYLING...................................................................................................................APPLICANT
And
STANDARD BANK SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED................................................1st RESPONDENT
GREEN APPLE INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED.............................................2nd RESPONDENT
Coram:
Ms Diane Terblanche: Presiding Member
Prof B Dumisa – Member
Ms P Beck – Member
Date of Hearing: 05 April 2016
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
APPLICANT
1. The applicant is Mr Nicolaas Johannes Greyling, a major male businessman residing in Centurion.
FIRST RESPONDENT
2. The First Respondent is Standard Bank of SA Limited, a registered credit provider with registered offices situated at 5 Simmonds Street, Johannesburg.
SECOND RESPONDENT
3. The Second Respondent is Green Apple Investments (Pty) Ltd with company registration number 2013/124628/2007, a private company situated at 181 Alcock Street, Colbyn, and Pretoria, Gauteng.
APPLICATION
4. This is an application for the Tribunal to review the sale of goods in terms of Section 128 of the National Credit Act (No 34) of 2005 (“NCA”). The goods in question involved immovable property which had been owned by the Applicant and which was sold at a public auction on 26 January 2016 to the Second Respondent.
THE HEARING
5. At the hearing the parties indicated that the Applicant was sequestrated and the final sequestration order was granted on 18 September 2015.
6. According to the Applicant -
• The Curator was appointed and he received notification of the appointment of the Curator on 04 April 2016;
• The Applicant consulted with the curator on the 04 April 2016;
• The Curator was not present at the hearing;
• The Applicant requested that the matter be postponed for the Curator to appraise himself of the case and make a decision about going forward with it, if at all.
7. The 1st Respondent submitted that irrespective of whether the Curator was present at the proceedings or not, the technical bar to the matter raised against the Tribunals jurisdiction in respect of the application would be an absolute bar to an Applicant getting the relief sought.
8. The 2nd Respondent objected to a postponement of the matter before the Tribunal because of the continual delay in the finalisation of its eviction application in the Magistrates Court.
DELIBERATIONS
9. As a result of being sequestrated the Applicant does not have locus standi.
10. The Applicant is not represented by the Curator appointed to manage his affairs and by extension manage the legal proceedings he is engaged in before the Tribunal.
11. As a consequence the Applicant though present, is not properly before the Tribunal.
12. Rule 24 (1) provides that –
“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;“
13. In the light of the above any of the submissions made by the Applicant could not be considered and by the same token, any submission by the Respondent in respect of the jurisdictional challenge, against the Tribunal’s powers to adjudicate on section 128 (1) application pertaining to immovable property, was similarly not considered.
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed
2. No order is made as to costs
Dated at Centurion on 05 April 2016
Ms Diane Terblanche:
Presiding Members
Prof B Dumisa (Member),
Ms P Beck (Member): Concurring