Ralph v Auto C Motorworx CC (NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 131 (4 September 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] ZANCT 131
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- H Devraj
- Case number
- NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)
More details
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- H Devraj
- Case number
- NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal determined that the interests of justice would be best served by allowing the Respondent an opportunity to regularize its position by filing a condonation application for the late answering affidavit and serving the affidavit on the Applicant. The Tribunal found that postponing the matter would ensure both parties are properly heard and that the matter is fully ventilated before a default order is considered.
Court disposition
The matter is postponed to allow the Respondent to file and serve a condonation application for the late filing of its answering affidavit.
Orders
- The matter is postponed for the Respondent to file and serve a condonation application for the late filing of its answering affidavit by no later than 7 September 2018.
- Should the Respondent fail to file and serve the condonation application by 7 September 2018, the matter will be set down again on a default basis.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Thomas Ralph
ApplicantAuto C Motorworx CC
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Postponement Application / Preliminary Order Prior to Hearing on Merits
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Respondent should be granted a postponement to file a condonation application for the late filing of its answering affidavit.
- 02
Whether the Respondent's failure to serve the answering affidavit on the Applicant warrants a postponement.
- 03
Whether the interests of justice require both parties to be heard before a default order is made.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicant did not oppose the Respondent's request for postponement.
- Respondent
- The Respondent appeared at the hearing and requested a postponement, arguing that although an answering affidavit was filed with the Tribunal, it was not served on the Applicant. The Respondent sought time to file a condonation application for the late filing and to serve the affidavit on the Applicant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 25(3) of the Tribunal Rules
The Tribunal may make a default order after considering necessary evidence and if satisfied that application documents were adequately served.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal determined that the interests of justice would be best served by allowing the Respondent an opportunity to regularize its position by filing a condonation application for the late answering affidavit and serving the affidavit on the Applicant. The Tribunal found that postponing the matter would ensure both parties are properly heard and that the matter is fully ventilated before a default order is considered.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of both parties being heard in the interests of justice.
- No order as to costs was made, reflecting the preliminary nature of the proceedings.
Court disposition
The matter is postponed to allow the Respondent to file and serve a condonation application for the late filing of its answering affidavit.
- The matter is postponed for the Respondent to file and serve a condonation application for the late filing of its answering affidavit by no later than 7 September 2018.
- Should the Respondent fail to file and serve the condonation application by 7 September 2018, the matter will be set down again on a default basis.
- 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
Order
IN
THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
HELD
IN CENTURION
Case number: NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)
In the matter between:
THOMAS
RALPH
APPLICANT
and
AUTO
C MOTORWORX CC
RESPONDENT
Coram:
Ms. H Devraj -
Presiding Member
Date of Hearing – 27 August 2018
POSTPONEMENT
ORDER
1. The Applicant in the main matter is Thomas Ralph, an adult male, hereinafter referred to as (“the Applicant”).
2. The Respondent in the main matter is Auto c Motorworx CC, hereinafter referred to as (the “Respondent”). Its registered business address is 178 Pruimbos Avenue, Weltevreden Park, Extension 24, Roodepoort.
3. The matter was set down on 28 August 2018, on a default basis. According to Rule 25(3):-
The Tribunal may make a default order-
(a) after it has considered or heard any necessary evidence; and
(b) if it is satisfied that the application documents were adequately served.
4. The Respondent made an appearance at the hearing and requested a postponement. The Respondent argued that he has filed an answering
affidavit on the Tribunal but was not aware that he needed to serve the document on the Applicant. He requested a postponement in order to file a condonation application for the late filing of the answering affidavit and to serve the answering affidavit on the Applicant.
5. The Applicant did not oppose the request for postponement.
6. The Tribunal decided that in the interest of justice it would be better to have the full matter before the Tribunal and to have both parties heard.
ORDER
7. The Tribunal made the following order:-
7.1 The matter is postponed for the Respondent to file and serve a condonation application for the late filing of its answering affidavit in terms of the Tribunal Rules. The condonation application must be served and filed no later than 7 September 2018.
7.2 Should the Respondent fail to file and serve the condonation application by 7 September 2018, the matter will be set down again on a default basis.
7.3 There is no order made as to costs.
DATED 4 September 2018
(signed)
Ms. H Devraj
Presiding Member
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.