Malela v Capitec Bank Limited (NCT93576/2017/148) [2018] ZANCT 12 (6 February 2018)

Malela v Capitec Bank Limited (NCT93576/2017/148) [2018] ZANCT 12 (6 February 2018)

The Tribunal found that the appellant's late referral could not be condoned because he had no prospects of success in the main matter. The credit agreements in question had been fully repaid and were no longer operative, thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to declare them reckless or grant any relief. The third credit agreement was not included in the NCR's notice of non-referral, so the Tribunal could not consider it. The relief sought by the appellant, including assistance in managing his relationship with the respondent and an apology, was beyond the Tribunal's statutory powers. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 12
Parties
Appellant: Thizwilondi Thomas Malela; Respondent: Capitec Bank Limited
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2018
Case Number
NCT93576/2017/148
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Referral
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Andisa Potwana, Fati Manamela, Trevor Bailey
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Condonation, Reckless Lending, Affordability Assessment, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure National Credit Act Condonation Reckless Lending Affordability Assessment 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thizwilondi Thomas Malela

Appellant

Capitec Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should condone the appellant's late referral of his complaint after the NCR issued a notice of non-referral.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the third credit agreement not included in the NCR's notice of non-referral.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant has prospects of success in the main matter given that the credit agreements have been settled.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the appellant's late referral could not be condoned because he had no prospects of success in the main matter. The credit agreements in question had been fully repaid and were no longer operative, thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to declare them reckless or grant any relief. The third credit agreement was not included in the NCR's notice of non-referral, so the Tribunal could not consider it. The relief sought by the appellant, including assistance in managing his relationship with the respondent and an apology, was beyond the Tribunal's statutory powers. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • This appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.