Gwabeni v Peng Investments (Pty) Ltd trading as Haval Hatfield (Condonation Ruling) (NCT/280884/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 43 (10 October 2023)

Gwabeni v Peng Investments (Pty) Ltd trading as Haval Hatfield (Condonation Ruling) (NCT/280884/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 43 (10 October 2023)

The Tribunal found that both vehicles at issue were purchased more than three years prior to the application, and the applicant's complaint relates to acts or omissions that occurred outside the statutory three-year period prescribed by section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Tribunal, guided by the principles in Melane v Santam Insurance and FirstRand Bank Ltd v Ludick, held that without reasonable prospects of success in the main application, condonation cannot be granted, regardless of the explanation for the delay. The applicant failed to show good cause for condonation, and the application was refused.

Citation
[2023] ZANCT 43
Parties
Applicant: Mxolisi Michael Gwabeni; Respondent: Peng Investments (Pty) Ltd trading as Haval Hatfield
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Case Number
NCT/280884/2023/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Application for Leave to Refer
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's application for leave to refer is refused.
Judges
A Potwana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Consumer Protection Act, Prospects of Success, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Consumer Protection Act Prospects of Success Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mxolisi Michael Gwabeni

Applicant

Peng Investments (Pty) Ltd trading as Haval Hatfield

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Application for Leave to Refer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of his application for leave to refer a complaint to the Tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant enjoys reasonable prospects of success in the main application given the time elapsed since the cause of complaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that both vehicles at issue were purchased more than three years prior to the application, and the applicant's complaint relates to acts or omissions that occurred outside the statutory three-year period prescribed by section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Tribunal, guided by the principles in Melane v Santam Insurance and FirstRand Bank Ltd v Ludick, held that without reasonable prospects of success in the main application, condonation cannot be granted, regardless of the explanation for the delay. The applicant failed to show good cause for condonation, and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's application for leave to refer is refused.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's application for leave to refer is refused.
  • No order is made as to costs.