Maree v Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd (NCT/95354/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 18 (4 March 2019)

Maree v Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd (NCT/95354/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 18 (4 March 2019)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of its answering affidavit, namely a bona fide belief that service via e-mail was agreed to by the Applicant to minimise costs, and that the Applicant later withdrew this consent. There was no delay in the actual service of the affidavit, and the Applicant did not oppose the condonation application or allege any prejudice. The Tribunal held that, in the interests of justice, both parties should be afforded the opportunity to present their full cases. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing was granted and the normal rules for filing a replying affidavit would apply.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 18
Parties
Applicant: Roberto Maree; Respondent: Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2019
Case Number
NCT/95354/2017/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's answering affidavit is granted.
Judges
P A Beck
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit, Service of Documents, Interests of Justice
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Affidavit Service of Documents Interests of Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roberto Maree

Applicant

Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's late filing of its answering affidavit should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether service of the answering affidavit via e-mail, following withdrawal of consent, constitutes non-compliance with Tribunal rules.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require condonation under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of its answering affidavit, namely a bona fide belief that service via e-mail was agreed to by the Applicant to minimise costs, and that the Applicant later withdrew this consent. There was no delay in the actual service of the affidavit, and the Applicant did not oppose the condonation application or allege any prejudice. The Tribunal held that, in the interests of justice, both parties should be afforded the opportunity to present their full cases. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing was granted and the normal rules for filing a replying affidavit would apply.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's answering affidavit is granted.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • The Applicant must file his replying affidavit within 10 days of the issuing of this judgment, per registered mail, on the Respondent and file same on the Tribunal.