Nedbank Ltd v Sager and Others (NCT/127209/2019/165) [2019] ZANCT 71 (17 May 2019)

Nedbank Ltd v Sager and Others (NCT/127209/2019/165) [2019] ZANCT 71 (17 May 2019)

The Tribunal held that section 165 of the National Credit Act restricts its power to vary or rescind orders to specific circumstances: an order erroneously sought or granted, ambiguity, obvious error or omission, or a mistake common to all parties. The applicant did not demonstrate any error, ambiguity, or mistake in the previous variation order, which was granted as requested. The new repayment agreement reached between the parties after the previous order does not constitute grounds for variation under section 165. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot vary an order to reflect new agreements made after the order was issued, and it does not have the power to issue declaratory orders....

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 71
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Ltd; Respondent: Senay Sager; Respondent: Ruth-Ann Theresa Challens; Respondent: Virgille Hendry Challens; Respondent: ABSA Bank Ltd; Respondent: Discovery Vitality Health (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: First National Bank, a division of Firstrand Bank Ltd; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd; Respondent: Wesbank, a division of Firstrand Bank Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Case Number
NCT/127209/2019/165
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Judgment on Default Basis
Outcome
Application to vary the order refused.
Judges
J Simpson, P Beck, L Best
Legal Topics
Debt Review, Variation of Order, National Credit Act, Default Judgment
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Debt Review Variation of Order National Credit Act Default Judgment

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Ltd

Applicant

Senay Sager

Respondent

Ruth-Ann Theresa Challens

Respondent

Virgille Hendry Challens

Respondent

ABSA Bank Ltd

Respondent

Discovery Vitality Health (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

First National Bank, a division of Firstrand Bank Ltd

Respondent

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd

Respondent

Wesbank, a division of Firstrand Bank Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Judgment on Default Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal may vary a debt rearrangement order under section 165 of the National Credit Act based on a new agreement between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether any error, ambiguity, or omission occurred in the granting of the previous variation order.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the statutory grounds for rescission or variation under section 165.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that section 165 of the National Credit Act restricts its power to vary or rescind orders to specific circumstances: an order erroneously sought or granted, ambiguity, obvious error or omission, or a mistake common to all parties. The applicant did not demonstrate any error, ambiguity, or mistake in the previous variation order, which was granted as requested. The new repayment agreement reached between the parties after the previous order does not constitute grounds for variation under section 165. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot vary an order to reflect new agreements made after the order was issued, and it does not have the power to issue declaratory orders....

Court Disposition

Application to vary the order refused.

Orders

  • The application to vary the order is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.