Paladh v Adjust 4 Sleep (Adjustable Beds) (NCT/255043/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 50 (23 November 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZANCT 50
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- M Peenze, A Potwana, C Sassman
- Case number
- NCT/255043/2023/75(1)(b)
More details
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- M Peenze, A Potwana, C Sassman
- Case number
- NCT/255043/2023/75(1)(b)
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantAdjust 4 Sleep (Adjustable Beds)
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Purchase Price Ordered for Refund: ZAR 86,670
03
Procedural history
Posture
Variation Application / Own Accord Variation of Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Tribunal may vary its own order to correct a clerical error in the amount stated in words.
- 02
Whether section 165(b) of the National Credit Act permits correction of an obvious error in the order.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
National Consumer Tribunal
Order
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
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.