Nedbank Limited v Mbili and Others (NCT/17149/2014/165) [2015] ZANCT 6 (23 February 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZANCT 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- F Manamela, B Dumisa, F Sibanda
- Case number
- NCT/17149/2014/165
More details
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- F Manamela, B Dumisa, F Sibanda
- Case number
- NCT/17149/2014/165
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide cogent reasons justifying a variation of the order as required by section 165 of the National Credit Act. The application did not demonstrate that any of the statutory grounds for variation or rescission—such as error, ambiguity, omission, or a common mistake—were present. The proposed changes would alter the debt re-arrangement previously agreed to by all parties, but no basis under section 165 was established. Accordingly, the application for variation was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application to vary the order is dismissed.
Orders
- The application to vary the order granted by the Tribunal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nedbank Limited
Applicant Counsel: Ms M OrsmondWT Mbili
RespondentJD Group (Pty) Ltd
RespondentAfrican Bank Limited
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Original Repayment Term (months): ZAR 79
- Original Monthly Repayment: ZAR 1,000
- Original Interest Rate (%): ZAR 12
- New Repayment Term (months): ZAR 33
- New Monthly Repayment (first 24 Months): ZAR 1,700
- New Interest Rate (%): ZAR 7
- New Monthly Repayment (next 2 Months): ZAR 1,836.71
- New Monthly Repayment (final 7 Months): ZAR 1,934.29
03
Procedural history
Posture
Variation Application / Hearing and Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has established grounds under section 165 of the National Credit Act to justify variation of the Tribunal's previous order.
- 02
Whether any of the statutory circumstances for variation or rescission of an order are present in this case.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the repayment term for the Nedbank account under the existing debt re-arrangement order is excessively long. A new acceptance letter was signed by Nedbank reflecting a revised repayment schedule with a shorter term and lower interest rate. The applicant sought variation of the order to reflect these changes but conceded that the application did not set out a proper reason in terms of section 165 of the National Credit Act.
- Respondent
- None of the respondents appeared or made submissions at the hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 165 of the National Credit Act, No 34 of 2005
The Tribunal may vary or rescind its decision or order only in specific circumstances: if the order was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party affected by it; if there is ambiguity, or an obvious error or omission, but only to the extent of correcting that ambiguity, error or omission; or if the order was made or granted as a result of a mistake common to all the parties to the proceedings.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide cogent reasons justifying a variation of the order as required by section 165 of the National Credit Act. The application did not demonstrate that any of the statutory grounds for variation or rescission—such as error, ambiguity, omission, or a common mistake—were present. The proposed changes would alter the debt re-arrangement previously agreed to by all parties, but no basis under section 165 was established. Accordingly, the application for variation was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that applications for variation must clearly set out the grounds relied upon under section 165 of the National Credit Act.
- The absence of proper reasons or statutory grounds will result in dismissal of such applications.
Court disposition
Application to vary the order is dismissed.
- The application to vary the order granted by the Tribunal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
National Consumer Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
National Consumer Tribunal
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN
THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
HELD
AT CENTURION
Case number: NCT/17149/2014/165
In the matter between:
NEDBANK LIMITED......................................................................................................
APPLICANT
and
WT MBILI.........................................................................................................FIRST
RESPONDENT
JD GROUP (PTY) LTD...............................................................................SECOND
RESPONDENT
AFRICAN
BANK LIMITED........................................................................
THIRD RESPONDENT
Coram:
Adv F Manamela – Presiding member
Prof B Dumisa – Member
Mr F Sibanda – Member
Date of Hearing – 26 November 2014
JUDGMENT
AND REASONS
THE
PARTIES
1. The Applicant is Nedbank Limited, a credit provider registered in terms of the National Credit Act, No 34 of 2005 (“the NCA”) (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”).
2. The First Respondent is a consumer who applied for a debt re-arrangement agreement to be confirmed as an Order of the Tribunal, in terms of section 138 of the NCA.
3. The Second and Third Respondents are credit providers registered in terms of the NCA.
JURISDICTION
4. The Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal in terms of section 165 of the NCA for the variation of the order granted by a single member of the Tribunal in accordance with section 138(1) of the NCA.
5. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
ISSUES
TO BE DECIDED
6. The Tribunal must determine whether there are grounds to vary the order granted.
BACKGROUND
7. In 2010 the consumer applied in terms of section 138(1) of the NCA to have a debt re-arrangement agreement made an order of the Tribunal.
8. The application was considered by a single member, Adv N Sephoti, and granted on 15 February 2011.
9. In August 2014 the Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for the variation of the order granted.
10. The matter was set down for hearing on 26 November 2014.
THE
HEARING
11. At the hearing the Applicant was represented by Ms M Orsmond of Hammond Pole Attorneys.
12. There was no appearance by any of the Respondents or their representatives at the hearing.
13. Ms Orsmond explained to the Tribunal that the reason for bringing the application for variation of the order is because the repayment term for the Nedbank account No [….] is too long.
14. A new acceptance letter was signed by Nedbank reflecting a new repayment start date of April 2013, for 24 months, at R1 700 at an interest rate of 7% per annum. The next cascading payment would commence in April 2015 for two months at R1 836.71, also at an interest rate of 7% per annum and the final cascading would start in June 2015 for seven monthly payments, at R1 934,29 at a rate of interest of 7% per annum.
15. The new repayment period is 33 months compared to the current 79 months at R1000 per month at an interest rate of 12% per annum.
APPLICABLE
LAW
16. Section 165 of the NCA states the following –
“Variation of order
165. The Tribunal, acting of its own accord or on application by a person affected by a decision or order, may vary or rescind its decision or order –
(a) erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party affected by it;
(b) in which there is ambiguity, or an obvious error or omission, but only to the extent of correcting that ambiguity, error or omission; or
(c) made or granted as a result of a mistake common to all the parties to the proceedings”.
CONSIDERATION
OF THE FACTS AND THE LAW
17. Section 165 of the NCA lays down specific circumstances under which an order may be varied or rescinded, and these are instances where:
(a) an order was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party affected by it
(b) there is ambiguity, or an obvious error or omission, but only to the extent of correcting that ambiguity, error or omission; or
(c) an order was made or granted as a result of a mistake common to all the parties to the proceedings
18. When asked to address the Tribunal on the grounds for seeking a variation of the order, taking into account the factors listed in section 165 of the NCA, Ms Orsmond responded as follows:
“Well as I can see from our application, we did not set out a proper reason in terms of Section, well in, yes, Section 165 of the NCA, we just said that the account were not solved, we do not really state whether it was done in error or it was ambiguous or anything, that our own reason is very vague, because we can, I can explain to you why it were not solved, as I did, where it saying in terms of the 33 months, but we did not set it out as per the rules of the NCA[1].”
19. The application to have the debt re-arrangement agreement made an Order of the Tribunal was lodged in 2010. In considering the application, the Tribunal Member had regard to the acceptance letters signed by the credit providers, indicating their acceptance of the debt re-arrangement proposal.
20. The Applicant also signed a letter of acceptance at the time, contained on page 10 of the bundle of documents.
21. The decision to grant an order takes into account the totality of the agreement, comprising various other creditors, besides Nedbank in this instance, and the consumer’s ability to re-pay the debt.
22. To change the agreement in the manner sought by the Applicant changes the debt re-arrangement permutation previously agreed to.
CONCLUSION
23. The Applicant did not provide cogent reasons to justify a variation of the order.
24. There is no indication that any of the factors outlined in section 165 of the NCA arise in this matter.
ORDER
25. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The application to vary the order granted by the Tribunal is dismissed;
b. There is no order as to costs.
DATED THIS 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
[signed]
_______
FK Sibanda
Member
Adv F Manamela (Presiding Member) and Prof B Dumisa (Member) concurring.
[1] Page 10 of the hearing transcript.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.