National Credit Regulator v Nedbank Ltd and Others (19638/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 377 (20 November 2009)

IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

DATE: 20 NOVEMBER 2009

NOT

REPORTABLE

NOT

OF INTEREST TO TOHER JUDGES

CASE NUMBER: 19638/2008

In the matter between:

THE

NATIONAL CREDIT

REGULATOR APPLICANT

And

NEDBANK

LIMITED

FIRST

RESPONDENT

FIRSTRAND

BANK LIMITED

SECOND

RESPONDENT

STANDARD

BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED THIRD

RESPONDENT

ABSA

BANK LIMITED

FOURTH

RESPONDENT

THE

CREDIT PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION

FIFTH

RESPONDENT

THE

FURNITURE TRADERS ASSOCIATION

SIXTH

RESPONDENT

RETAIL

MOTOR INDUSTRY

SEVENTH

RESPONDENT

THE

MINSITER OF JUSTICE AND

EIGHTH

RESPONDENT

CONSITUTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

THE

MINSITER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

NINTH

RESPONDENT

THE

DEBT COUSELLORS ACCOCAITION

TENTH

RESPONDENT

OF

SOUTH AFRICA

ONECOR PROPRIETARY) LIMITED

ELEVENTH

RESPONDENT

JUSELIUS.

JOHAN ERIK

TWELVE

RESPONDENT

Du Plossls, J:

In the course of the application for leave to appeal the second respondent in the main application (First Rand Bank Limited) sought

an order to amend paragraph 11 of this court's order by adding thereto the words “whilst the consumer remains In default”.

The contention is that the order as It stands creates or might create practical difficulties with its interpretation. No other party raised the same or a similar problem.

Paragraph 11 was granted exactly in the terms that the applicant in the main application sought. Consequently, the order as it stands is not the result of an error. To the extent that this court might have the power to amend the order by reason of an ambiguity, the order is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. In my view the question as to whether the order should be amended should be left to that court.

The application to amend this court's order is dismissed.

______

B

R DU PLESSIS

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT

On behalf of the Applicant: Mothle

Jooma Sabdia Inc

Floor, West Wing

Duncan Manor

Cnr. Duncan & Brooks Street

BROOKLYN

PRETORIA

P O Box 11147 HatfieW 0023

Adv. C.D.A LOXTONSC

Adv M A Chohan

On behalf of the First to Sixth

Respondents: Werksmans

Inc.

C/O Edelstein Bosman

220 Lange Street

Nieuw Muckleneuck

Adv M O Kuper SC J

Adv J M.A. Cane

On behalf of the first

Respondent: Adv.

D.E. Van Loggerenberg SC

Respondents: Werksmans

Inc.

On Behalf of the

Second Respondents: Van

Hulsteyns Attorneys

C/O Savage Jooste and Adams

141 Boshoff Street

Nieuw Mucklenuek

Adv. G. Farter (SC)

Adv. N Konstantinides

On behalf of the

Fourth Respondent: Jay

Motohbi Inc.

C/O Savage Jooste and Acams

Nieuw Mucfcleneucfc

Adv. G H Meyer

On behalf of the Fifth and

Sixth Respondent: Routiedge

Modisa

C/0 Adams & Adams

1140 Prospect Street Hatfield

Pretoria

On behalf of the Eighth and

Ninth Respondents: The

State Attorney

8th Floor, Bothongo Heights

167 Andres Street

Eleventh Respondent: Coombe

& Associates

Cnr. Watloo & Fiamink Streets

Silverton

Adv. P.F Louw SC

Adv S Gouws

Twelfth Respondent: Booysens

& CO Inc.

C/O Velile Tinto & Assoc. Inc

Tinto House

Cnr Hans Sirijdom & Disselboom

Wapadrand

Adv KJ. Kemp SC J