Download PDF

South Africa Order

National Consumer Tribunal

Paladh v Adjust 4 Sleep (Adjustable Beds) (NCT/255043/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 50 (23 November 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the original order contained a clerical error in the wording of the amount to be refunded, stating 'sixty-eight thousand six hundred and seventy rands' instead of 'eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands'. The Tribunal held that section 165(b) of the National Credit Act allows it to correct such an obvious error. The Tribunal also relied on the Firestone judgment, which permits courts to supplement judgments to correct inadvertent errors if approached within a reasonable time. The Tribunal concluded that the intention was always to order a refund of R86 670.00, as reflected in the applicant's papers and the numeric value in the order. Therefore, the order was varied to correctly reflect the amount in words.

Court disposition

The Tribunal varied its original order to correct the clerical error in the amount stated in words, confirming the refund amount as R86 670.00 ('eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands').

Orders

  • Paragraph 34.3 of the originally published judgment is varied to correctly reflect the purchase amount of the goods in words as 'eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands'.
  • The amended order must be issued where the correct amount in words appears in paragraph 34.3.
  • No order is made as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Terrence Alvin Paladh

Applicant

Adjust 4 Sleep (Adjustable Beds)

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Purchase Price Ordered for Refund: ZAR 86,670

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Variation Application / Own Accord Variation of Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant submitted that the purchase price of the goods was R86 670.00 and requested an order for a refund of this amount. The applicant alleged that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct under the Consumer Protection Act. The applicant relied on the documents filed before the Tribunal, which consistently reflected the purchase price as R86 670.00.
Respondent
The respondent did not oppose the application and made no submissions regarding the variation or the underlying refund order.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    National Credit Act, 34 of 2005, section 165(b)

    Section 165(b) of the National Credit Act empowers the Tribunal to vary or rescind its decision or order to correct ambiguity, or an obvious error or omission, but only to the extent of correcting that ambiguity, error or omission.

  2. 02

    Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977(4) SA 298 (A)

    A judgment may be supplemented where an error was inadvertently committed, provided the court is approached within a reasonable time.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the original order contained a clerical error in the wording of the amount to be refunded, stating 'sixty-eight thousand six hundred and seventy rands' instead of 'eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands'. The Tribunal held that section 165(b) of the National Credit Act allows it to correct such an obvious error. The Tribunal also relied on the Firestone judgment, which permits courts to supplement judgments to correct inadvertent errors if approached within a reasonable time. The Tribunal concluded that the intention was always to order a refund of R86 670.00, as reflected in the applicant's papers and the numeric value in the order. Therefore, the order was varied to correctly reflect the amount in words.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that it could have been considered functus officio under common law, but section 165(b) of the NCA provides statutory authority to correct obvious errors.
  • No order as to costs was made, reflecting the unopposed nature of the application.

Court disposition

The Tribunal varied its original order to correct the clerical error in the amount stated in words, confirming the refund amount as R86 670.00 ('eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands').

  • Paragraph 34.3 of the originally published judgment is varied to correctly reflect the purchase amount of the goods in words as 'eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands'.
  • The amended order must be issued where the correct amount in words appears in paragraph 34.3.
  • No order is made 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.

Source document

National Consumer Tribunal

Order

[2023] ZANCT 50

IN

THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL

HELD

IN CENTURION

Case number: NCT/255043/2023/75(1)(b)

In the matter between:

TERRENCE

ALVIN PALADH APPLICANT

And

ADJUST 4 SLEEP (ADJUSTABLE BEDS) RESPONDENT

Coram:

Dr M Peenze - Presiding Tribunal Member

Dr A Potwana - Tribunal Member

Adv C Sassman - Tribunal Member

TRIBUNAL

OWN ACCORD VARIATION OF AN ORDER

BACKGROUND

1. This application came before the National Consumer Tribunal (the Tribunal) on an unopposed basis.

2. On the day of the hearing, 9 November 2023, the applicant, Mr Terrence Alvin Paladh, represented himself.

3. The applicant applied in terms of section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008 (the CPA) for an order directing a refund of the purchase price of the goods purchased from the respondent. The applicant alleged that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct.

4. On 9 November 2023, the Tribunal heard oral arguments. After consideration of the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal granted the relief requested.

TYPE OF MATTER AND

JURISDICTION

5. This is an own-accord variation of the order the Tribunal issued on 10 November 2023.

6. In terms of section 165(b) of the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 (the NCA) the Tribunal has jurisdiction to vary the order.

INTRODUCTION

7. After the judgment was issued on 10 November 2023, the Registrar emailed the order to the parties.

8. On 23 November 2023, the Registrar alerted the judgment writer that the order contained a typographical error: the amount of money ordered to be paid by the respondent is inconsistently stated in the judgment.

ISSUE TO BE DECIDED

9. The applicant’s papers before the Tribunal refer to the purchase price as R86 670.00. Therefore, the correct amount in words is “eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands”.

10. The order correctly reflects in paragraph 34.3 that the amount of money ordered to be paid by the respondent is “R86 670.00”, but in words, it is incorrectly reflected as “sixty-eight thousand six hundred and seventy rands”. This mistake occurred due to a clerical error by the Tribunal.

11. Paragraph 34.3 must be varied to reflect the correct amount in words as outlined in the filed documents before the Tribunal. The real intention of the writer of the order was to reflect the purchase amount of the goods purchased by the applicant.

THE LAW

12. The Tribunal could have been considered functus officio under common law. Hence, despite this obvious error, we could have been constrained from varying this order.

13. However, section 165(b) of the NCA states-

“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 in which there is ambiguity, or an obvious error or omission, but only to the extent of correcting that ambiguity, error or omission.”

CONSIDERATION OF THE

MERITS

14. The Tribunal will be able to correct the mistake in the original published order, mainly relying on the provisions of section 165(b) of the NCA.

15. Furthermore, the Tribunal may also rely on the judgment in Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977(4) SA298(A), where the court held that a judgment may be supplemented where an error was inadvertently committed, provided that the court was approached within a reasonable time.

16. The Tribunal is satisfied that the mistake made in paragraph 34.3 of the original judgment be appropriately amended.

ORDER

17. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal makes the following order:

17.1 Paragraph 34.3 of the originally published judgment is varied to correctly reflect the purchase amount of the goods in words as “eighty-six thousand six hundred and seventy rands”;

17.2 The amended order, attached to this own accord variation as “Amended order: Terrence Alvin Paladh v Adjust 4 Sleep (Adjustable Beds) NCT255043-2023-Section 75(1)(b)”, must be issued where the correct amount in words appears in paragraph 34.3; and

17.3 No order is made as to costs.

Dated 23 November 2023.

[signed]

Dr MC Peenze

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977(4) SA 298 (A)

Case cited

Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

National Credit Act, 34 of 2005

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.