Mphasane v Afropulse 145 (Pty) Ltd Trading as Kingdom Doors (NCT/237419/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 46 (29 September 2022)

Mphasane v Afropulse 145 (Pty) Ltd Trading as Kingdom Doors (NCT/237419/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 46 (29 September 2022)

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing the application for leave was approximately three months beyond the statutory period. While the delay itself was not substantial, the decisive factor was the statutory time-bar under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits the Tribunal from entertaining complaints more than three years after the cause of action arose. The applicant's complaint originated in June 2016, and the application was only filed in July 2022, well outside the permissible period. The Tribunal is bound by the High Court's interpretation that it has no discretion to extend this time-bar, regardless of the explanation for delay or the conduct...

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 46
Parties
Applicant: Suzan Mphasane; Respondent: Afropulse 145 (Pty) Ltd Trading as Kingdom Doors
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Case Number
NCT/237419/2022/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing
Outcome
Application for condonation of late filing is refused; no order as to costs.
Judges
J Simpson
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Consumer Protection Act, Prescription, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Consumer Protection Act Prescription Tribunal 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suzan Mphasane

Applicant

Afropulse 145 (Pty) Ltd Trading as Kingdom Doors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should condone the late filing of the application for leave under section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claim has lapsed due to the statutory time-bar under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the delay was caused by the conduct of the National Consumer Commission and if this affects the applicant's prospects.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing the application for leave was approximately three months beyond the statutory period. While the delay itself was not substantial, the decisive factor was the statutory time-bar under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits the Tribunal from entertaining complaints more than three years after the cause of action arose. The applicant's complaint originated in June 2016, and the application was only filed in July 2022, well outside the permissible period. The Tribunal is bound by the High Court's interpretation that it has no discretion to extend this time-bar, regardless of the explanation for delay or the conduct...

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.