Moonsamy v National Credit Regulator (NCT/115516/2018/56(1)R34) [2019] ZANCT 85 (21 May 2019)

Moonsamy v National Credit Regulator (NCT/115516/2018/56(1)R34) [2019] ZANCT 85 (21 May 2019)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's delay in filing its Answering Affidavit was adequately explained and resulted from circumstances beyond its control, specifically the sudden absence of its Legal Advisor. The Applicant did not oppose the condonation application and had previously been granted condonation for late filing herself. The Tribunal considered the interests of justice, the absence of prejudice to the Applicant, and the Respondent's determination to defend its Compliance Notice. Applying the principles from Rule 34 and relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that good cause was shown and condonation should be granted.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 85
Parties
Applicant: Renei Moonsamy; Respondent: National Credit Regulator
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2019
Case Number
NCT/115516/2018/56(1)R34
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Interlocutory Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Answering Affidavit by Respondent
Outcome
Condonation granted to the Respondent for late filing of its Answering Affidavit. Normal time periods and processes following the filing of the Answering Affidavit will apply. No order as to costs.
Judges
B Dumisa
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Tribunal Rules, Good Cause, Compliance Notice
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Tribunal Rules Good Cause Compliance Notice

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renei Moonsamy

Applicant

National Credit Regulator

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Interlocutory Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Answering Affidavit by Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent has shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of its Answering Affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the late filing will prejudice the Applicant or the administration of justice.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to grant condonation under the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's delay in filing its Answering Affidavit was adequately explained and resulted from circumstances beyond its control, specifically the sudden absence of its Legal Advisor. The Applicant did not oppose the condonation application and had previously been granted condonation for late filing herself. The Tribunal considered the interests of justice, the absence of prejudice to the Applicant, and the Respondent's determination to defend its Compliance Notice. Applying the principles from Rule 34 and relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that good cause was shown and condonation should be granted.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted to the Respondent for late filing of its Answering Affidavit. Normal time periods and processes following the filing of the Answering Affidavit will apply. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted to the Respondent for the late filing of its Answering Affidavit.
  • Normal time periods and processes after the filing of the Respondent's Answering Affidavit to an Objection to a Compliance Notice will apply as at the date of issue of this Ruling.