National Credit Regulator v Pams Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (NCT/113255/2018/57(1)) [2019] ZANCT 111 (22 July 2019)

National Credit Regulator v Pams Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (NCT/113255/2018/57(1)) [2019] ZANCT 111 (22 July 2019)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent could not have known its counter-proposal was unacceptable due to the Applicant's delayed response, and thus could not file a substantive application for postponement. The Tribunal condoned the procedural non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of audi alteram partem and the need for fairness. Given the insufficiency of the Respondent's answering affidavit and the lack of articulated prejudice to the Applicant, the Tribunal held that the Respondent should be granted an opportunity to pursue settlement or file a supplementary affidavit. The Tribunal cautioned the parties to act expeditiously in line with statutory requirements.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 111
Parties
Applicant: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: Pams Financial Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2019
Case Number
NCT/113255/2018/57(1)
Procedural Posture
Postponement Application / Application for Postponement Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for postponement granted; matter postponed sine die to allow Respondent to pursue settlement or file supplementary affidavit.
Judges
A Potwana, P Beck, H Devraj
Legal Topics
Postponement, Audi Alteram Partem, Natural Justice, Supplementary Affidavit
Civil Procedure Postponement Audi Alteram Partem Natural Justice Supplementary Affidavit

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Credit Regulator

Applicant

Pams Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Postponement Application / Application for Postponement Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent should be granted a postponement to pursue settlement or file a supplementary affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should condone non-compliance with procedural rules regarding the application for postponement.
  3. 3 Whether the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, require granting the Respondent an opportunity to present its case adequately.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent could not have known its counter-proposal was unacceptable due to the Applicant's delayed response, and thus could not file a substantive application for postponement. The Tribunal condoned the procedural non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of audi alteram partem and the need for fairness. Given the insufficiency of the Respondent's answering affidavit and the lack of articulated prejudice to the Applicant, the Tribunal held that the Respondent should be granted an opportunity to pursue settlement or file a supplementary affidavit. The Tribunal cautioned the parties to act expeditiously in line with statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted; matter postponed sine die to allow Respondent to pursue settlement or file supplementary affidavit.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed sine die to allow the Respondent to file necessary applications for a supplementary affidavit or finalize settlement negotiations within 15 business days.
  • If the parties settle and wish the agreement to be made an order of the Tribunal, they must notify the Registrar within 15 business days.