Mokgoke v Momentum Insure Company Limited (NCT/279251/75(1)(b) - Rule 34) [2023] ZANCT 35 (20 September 2023)

Mokgoke v Momentum Insure Company Limited (NCT/279251/75(1)(b) - Rule 34) [2023] ZANCT 35 (20 September 2023)

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing was excessive but partially explained by his reliance on advice from the NCC and subsequent referral to the FSCA. However, the Tribunal determined that it lacks statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint, as the respondent's services are governed by the Short-Term Insurance Act and not the CPA. The applicant's claims relate to contractual and delictual issues, including general damages, which fall outside the Tribunal's authority. As there are no reasonable prospects of success and no good cause shown, condonation for late filing is refused.

Citation
[2023] ZANCT 35
Parties
Applicant: Mojela Simon Mokgoke; Respondent: Momentum Insure Company Limited
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2023
Case Number
NCT/279251/75(1)(b) - Rule 34
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Condonation application dismissed; no cost order.
Judges
MC Peenze
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction, Insurance Contracts, Consumer Protection Act, Short Term Insurance
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Condonation Jurisdiction Insurance Contracts Consumer Protection Act Short Term Insurance

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

Parties

Mojela Simon Mokgoke

Applicant

Momentum Insure Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the applicant's complaint against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing was excessive but partially explained by his reliance on advice from the NCC and subsequent referral to the FSCA. However, the Tribunal determined that it lacks statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint, as the respondent's services are governed by the Short-Term Insurance Act and not the CPA. The applicant's claims relate to contractual and delictual issues, including general damages, which fall outside the Tribunal's authority. As there are no reasonable prospects of success and no good cause shown, condonation for late filing is refused.

Court Disposition

Condonation application dismissed; no cost order.

Orders

  • The condonation application is dismissed.
  • There is no cost order.