Nadan and Another v Madupha Business Enterprise (NCT/239043/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 50 (28 October 2022)

Nadan and Another v Madupha Business Enterprise (NCT/239043/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 50 (28 October 2022)

The Tribunal found that the Applicants' right to apply for leave to refer their complaint expired before they lodged a complaint with the Commission. Section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly prohibits the Tribunal from hearing matters referred more than three years after the cause of action arose. The High Court in FirstRand Bank Ltd v Annet Ludick confirmed that the Tribunal has no discretion to entertain complaints outside the statutory time limit. Without prospects of success, regardless of the explanation for the delay, condonation must be refused. The Applicants failed to demonstrate prospects of success, and the application for condonation was accordingly refused.

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 50
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Nadan; Applicant: Kemantha Nadan; Respondent: Madupha’s Business Enterprise
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Case Number
NCT/239043/2022/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Application for Leave to Refer
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the Applicants' application for leave to refer is refused.
Judges
A Potwana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Consumer Protection Act, Jurisdiction, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Consumer Protection Act Jurisdiction Prospects of Success

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Nadan

Applicant

Kemantha Nadan

Applicant

Madupha’s Business Enterprise

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Application for Leave to Refer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should condone the late filing of the Applicants' application for leave to refer a complaint.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants' complaint is time-barred under section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants have prospects of success in their application for leave to refer.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicants' right to apply for leave to refer their complaint expired before they lodged a complaint with the Commission. Section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly prohibits the Tribunal from hearing matters referred more than three years after the cause of action arose. The High Court in FirstRand Bank Ltd v Annet Ludick confirmed that the Tribunal has no discretion to entertain complaints outside the statutory time limit. Without prospects of success, regardless of the explanation for the delay, condonation must be refused. The Applicants failed to demonstrate prospects of success, and the application for condonation was accordingly refused.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the Applicants' application for leave to refer is refused.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the Applicants’ application for leave to refer is refused.
  • No order is made as to costs.