Nkume v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank (2743/11) [2012] ZAECMHC 5; 2012 (4) SA 121 (ECM) (15 March 2012)

Nkume v Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank (2743/11) [2012] ZAECMHC 5; 2012 (4) SA 121 (ECM) (15 March 2012)

The court held that the respondent was statutorily obliged under section 62 of the National Credit Act to provide written reasons for refusing credit and to disclose the particulars of the credit bureau. The respondent's delay in providing the information, which was readily available, was unreasonable and not adequately explained. The applicant's claim was properly founded on the statutory right and not on PAJA, and the respondent's reliance on administrative law principles was misplaced. The substantive relief became academic when the respondent eventually complied, but the applicant was entitled to costs due to the respondent's unreasonable delay and disregard for the applicant's...

Citation
[2012] ZAECMHC 5
Parties
Applicant: Sakhele Precious Nkume; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Case Number
2743/11
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance Application / Costs Determination After Substantive Relief Became Academic
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Z.M. Nhlangulela
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Specific Performance, Costs Award, Administrative Action, Reasonable Time for Compliance
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance National Credit Act Specific Performance Costs Award Administrative Action Reasonable Time for Compliance

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakhele Precious Nkume

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance Application / Costs Determination After Substantive Relief Became Academic

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was obliged to provide written reasons and credit bureau particulars under section 62 of the National Credit Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's delay in providing the requested information was unreasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs despite the substantive relief having become academic.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was statutorily obliged under section 62 of the National Credit Act to provide written reasons for refusing credit and to disclose the particulars of the credit bureau. The respondent's delay in providing the information, which was readily available, was unreasonable and not adequately explained. The applicant's claim was properly founded on the statutory right and not on PAJA, and the respondent's reliance on administrative law principles was misplaced. The substantive relief became academic when the respondent eventually complied, but the applicant was entitled to costs due to the respondent's unreasonable delay and disregard for the applicant's...

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The costs of this application shall be paid by the respondent.