National Credit Regulator v Intshebe Props 132 (Pty) Ltd (NCT/118595/2018/140(1)) [2019] ZANCT 25 (24 February 2019)

National Credit Regulator v Intshebe Props 132 (Pty) Ltd (NCT/118595/2018/140(1)) [2019] ZANCT 25 (24 February 2019)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's late filing of its Replying Affidavit was due to a bona fide oversight resulting from a typographical error in the Respondent's service of the Answering Affidavit and the omission of Part 1. The delay was only one day, which is negligible and not excessive. The Applicant provided a plausible explanation for the delay, and no party would suffer prejudice from the granting of condonation. The Tribunal held that it is in the interests of justice and the benefit of consumers that both parties be allowed to fully ventilate their cases before the Tribunal. Good cause was shown for condonation, and the application was granted.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 25
Parties
Applicant: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: Intshebe Props 132 (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2019
Case Number
NCT/118595/2018/140(1)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Replying Affidavit Prior to Hearing of Main Matter
Outcome
Condonation granted for the late filing of the Applicant's Replying Affidavit; no order as to costs.
Judges
Laura Best
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Good Cause, Tribunal Rules
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Good Cause Tribunal Rules

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Credit Regulator

Applicant

Intshebe Props 132 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Replying Affidavit Prior to Hearing of Main Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the Applicant's Replying Affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the degree of lateness and explanation provided constitute good cause for condonation.
  3. 3 Whether granting condonation would prejudice any party or the interests of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's late filing of its Replying Affidavit was due to a bona fide oversight resulting from a typographical error in the Respondent's service of the Answering Affidavit and the omission of Part 1. The delay was only one day, which is negligible and not excessive. The Applicant provided a plausible explanation for the delay, and no party would suffer prejudice from the granting of condonation. The Tribunal held that it is in the interests of justice and the benefit of consumers that both parties be allowed to fully ventilate their cases before the Tribunal. Good cause was shown for condonation, and the application was granted.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for the late filing of the Applicant's Replying Affidavit; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Condonation is hereby granted for the late filing of the Applicant's Replying Affidavit in the main application.
  • No order as to costs.