Khoare v Celsium Multi-Franchise (Pty) Ltd (NCT/237873/2022/75(1)(b) CPA - Rule 34) [2022] ZANCT 49 (6 October 2022)

Khoare v Celsium Multi-Franchise (Pty) Ltd (NCT/237873/2022/75(1)(b) CPA - Rule 34) [2022] ZANCT 49 (6 October 2022)

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim was time-barred under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the cause of action arose in August or September 2016 and the application was only filed in July 2022, well beyond the three-year limitation period. The Tribunal is bound by the High Court's interpretation that it has no discretion to extend this period. Even if the delay in filing was not substantial, the absence of prospects of success and the lack of clear evidence supporting the applicant's claim under the Consumer Protection Act preclude condonation. The application for condonation is therefore refused.

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 49
Parties
Applicant: Naleli Khunjuzwa Khoare; Respondent: Celsium Multi-Franchise (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2022
Case Number
NCT/237873/2022/75(1)(b) CPA – Rule 34
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Application for Leave
Outcome
Application for condonation of late filing is refused; no order as to costs.
Judges
J Simpson
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Prescription, Consumer Protection Act, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Prescription Consumer Protection Act Jurisdiction

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naleli Khunjuzwa Khoare

Applicant

Celsium Multi-Franchise (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the application for leave should be condoned under Rule 34 of the Tribunal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the claim is time-barred under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the applicant's claim under the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim was time-barred under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the cause of action arose in August or September 2016 and the application was only filed in July 2022, well beyond the three-year limitation period. The Tribunal is bound by the High Court's interpretation that it has no discretion to extend this period. Even if the delay in filing was not substantial, the absence of prospects of success and the lack of clear evidence supporting the applicant's claim under the Consumer Protection Act preclude condonation. The application for condonation is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of late filing is refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to condone the late filing of the application for leave is refused.
  • No order is made as to costs.