Imperial Group LTD T/A Imperial Toyota Bedfordview v Jacobs (NCT/109294/2018/75(1)(b)-Rule 34) [2018] ZANCT 108 (10 October 2018)

Imperial Group LTD T/A Imperial Toyota Bedfordview v Jacobs (NCT/109294/2018/75(1)(b)-Rule 34) [2018] ZANCT 108 (10 October 2018)

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the respondent's opposing affidavit was minimal and adequately explained by technical difficulties and prompt corrective action. The applicant did not oppose the condonation application and will not be prejudiced, as he retains the opportunity to file a replying affidavit. Applying the principles from Rule 34 and relevant case law, the Tribunal held that good cause was shown for condonation. The interests of justice favour granting condonation, as the respondent's defence should be heard and the procedural irregularity was not wilful or prejudicial to the applicant.

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 108
Parties
Applicant: Imperial Group LTD T/A Imperial Toyota Bedfordview; Respondent: Johannes Joost Jacobs
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Case Number
NCT/109294/2018/75(1)(b)-Rule 34
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Opposing Affidavit
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the respondent's opposing affidavit is granted.
Judges
A. Potwana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit, Tribunal Rules, Good Cause, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Affidavit Tribunal Rules Good Cause Prospects of Success

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperial Group LTD T/A Imperial Toyota Bedfordview

Applicant

Johannes Joost Jacobs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Opposing Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the respondent's opposing affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the degree of lateness and explanation provided constitute good cause under the Tribunal Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the respondent's opposing affidavit was minimal and adequately explained by technical difficulties and prompt corrective action. The applicant did not oppose the condonation application and will not be prejudiced, as he retains the opportunity to file a replying affidavit. Applying the principles from Rule 34 and relevant case law, the Tribunal held that good cause was shown for condonation. The interests of justice favour granting condonation, as the respondent's defence should be heard and the procedural irregularity was not wilful or prejudicial to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the respondent's opposing affidavit is granted.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the respondent's opposing affidavit is hereby granted.
  • The applicant must file its replying affidavit, if any, within 10 business days of the issuing of this order.