Sager v African Bank Limited and Others (NCT/88026/2017/165(1)) [2017] ZANCT 136 (8 November 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZANCT 136
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- A Potwana, J Simpson, K Moodaliyar
- Case number
- NCT/88026/2017/165(1)
More details
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- A Potwana, J Simpson, K Moodaliyar
- Case number
- NCT/88026/2017/165(1)
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that all parties were properly notified of the hearing date, time, and venue. No party appeared or was represented at the hearing, and the applicant had indicated an intention to withdraw but had not formally done so. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was no error, omission, ambiguity, or mistake in the original consent order that would justify a variation under Section 165 of the National Credit Act. The application was therefore dismissed in accordance with Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules, which permits dismissal for non-appearance by the applicant.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for non-appearance and lack of grounds for variation.
Orders
- The application lodged in terms of Section 165 of the National Credit Act is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Senay Sager
ApplicantCelestine Morale
RespondentAfrican Bank Limited
RespondentCapitec Bank Limited
RespondentHomechoice (Pty) Ltd
RespondentResidual Debt Services Limited formerly African Bank Limited (in curatorship)
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Application for Variation of Consent Order Under Section 165 of the National Credit Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Tribunal should vary its previous consent order to include a loan agreement with Capitec Bank Limited.
- 02
Whether the application should be dismissed due to non-appearance by the applicant and respondents.
- 03
Whether there was any error, omission, ambiguity or mistake in the original consent order justifying variation under Section 165 of the National Credit Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought a variation of the Tribunal's previous consent order, arguing that the Consumer's loan agreement with Capitec Bank Limited was omitted from the order in error. The application was lodged in terms of Section 165(1) of the National Credit Act.
- Respondent
- No arguments were presented by the respondents, as neither they nor the applicant appeared at the hearing. The Registrar advised that the applicant intended to withdraw the matter but had not filed a withdrawal form.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 24 of the National Consumer Tribunal Rules (GN 789 of 28 August 2007, as amended)
If an applicant fails to attend or be represented at a hearing, the presiding member may dismiss the matter by issuing a written ruling.
- 02
Section 165 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005
A Tribunal may vary or rescind its order if there is an error, omission, ambiguity, or mistake, but only if such is apparent from the record.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that all parties were properly notified of the hearing date, time, and venue. No party appeared or was represented at the hearing, and the applicant had indicated an intention to withdraw but had not formally done so. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was no error, omission, ambiguity, or mistake in the original consent order that would justify a variation under Section 165 of the National Credit Act. The application was therefore dismissed in accordance with Rule 24 of the Tribunal Rules, which permits dismissal for non-appearance by the applicant.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that the existence of the loan agreement with Capitec Bank Limited was only realised after the original application was filed and the order granted.
- There was no apparent evidence of any error or omission in the original consent order that would justify a variation under Section 165 of the Act.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for non-appearance and lack of grounds for variation.
- The application lodged in terms of Section 165 of the National Credit Act is dismissed.
- There is 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
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN
THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
HELD
IN CENTURION
Case Number: NCT/88026/2017/165(1)
In the matter between:
SENAY
SAGER
APPLICANT
NCRDC 2484
And
CELESTINE
MORALE
CONSUMER
ID NO: [...]
AFRICAN
BANK LIMITED 1st
RESPONDENT
CAPITEC
BANK LIMITED 2nd
RESPONDENT
HOMECHOICE (PTY) LTD 3rd
RESPONDENT
RESIDUAL
DEBT SERVICES LIMITED FORMERLY AFRICAN 4th RESPONDENT
BANK LIMITED (IN CURATORSHIP)
Coram:
Mr. A. Potwana - Presiding member
Adv J. Simpson - Tribunal Member
Prof. K. Moodaliyar - Tribunal Member
Date of hearing - 26 October 2017
JUDGEMENT
AND REASONS
APPLICANT
1. The Applicant is Senay Sager, a debt counsellor registered in accordance with the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (“the Act”)
(the “Applicant”).
CONSUMER
AND RESPONDENTS
2. The Consumer is Celestine Morale, who is under debt review. The First to the Fourth Respondents are all registered with the National
Credit Regulator as credit providers (hereinafter all the Respondents are collectively referred to as "the Respondents").
BACKGROUND
3. On 22 September 2016 a debt re-arrangement agreement between the Consumer and the First to Fourth Respondents was confirmed as an
order of the Tribunal as per case number NCT/50427/2015/138(1)P.
4. On 14 August 2017 the Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal in terms of Section 165(1) of the Act to have the order varied.
5. The basis of the Application is that the Consumer's loan agreement with Capitec Bank Limited was omitted from the order in error.
6. The Notice of Complete Filing was issued by the Registrar on 17 August 2017. The Notice of Set Down was issued by the Registrar on 20 September 2017 for the hearing on 26 October 2017.
7. On the date of the hearing there was no appearance by the Applicant, the Consumer, or any of the Respondents. The Registrar advised the Tribunal that the Applicant was contacted on the morning of the hearing but the Applicant did not intend appearing before the
Tribunal and in fact intended to withdraw the matter. No withdrawal form had however been filed.
DISMISSAL
OF APPLICATION
8. As stated above there was no appearance by the Applicant, Consumer or the Respondents or any representative on the date of the hearing.
9. Rule 24 of the National Consumer Tribunal Rules[1] provides that:
"Non appearance
(1) If a party to a matter fails to attend or be represented at any hearing or any proceedings, and that party-
(a) is the applicant, the presiding member may dismiss the matter by issuing a
written ruling; or
(b) is not the applicant, the presiding member may-
(i) continue with the proceedings in the absence of that party; or
(ii) adjourn the hearing ta a later date
(2) The Presiding member must be satisfied that the party had been properly notified of the date, time and venue of the proceedings, before making any decision in terms of subrule (1)
(3) Is a matter is dismissed, the Registrar must send a copy of the ruling to the parties."
10. The Presiding Member of the Tribunal was satisfied that the parties were properly notified of the date, time and venue for the proceedings.
11. The application was then formally dismissed by the Tribunal on record - extempore.
12. The Tribunal noted that the original application for the consent order did not contain any reference to a loan agreement with Capitec
Bank Limited. It appears to the Tribunal that the existence of the Joan agreement with Capitec Bank Limited was only realised after the application was filed and the order granted. There is no apparent evidence of any error, omission, ambiguity or mistake made in the original consent order. There is no apparent basis for a variation of the order under Section 165 of the Act.
ORDER
13. Accordingly, the Tribunal hereby confirms the ex-tempore order issued at the hearing stating that:
13.1 The application lodged in terms of Section 165 of the Act is hereby dismissed; and
13.2 There is no order as to costs.
DATED ON THIS 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
[signed]
Adv J Simpson
Tribunal Member
Mr. A Potwana (Presiding member) and Prof K Moodaliyar (Tribunal member) concurring
[1] GN 789 of 28 August 2007: Regulations for matters relating to the functions of the Tribunal and Rules for the conduct of matters before the National Consumer Tribunal, 2007 (Government Gazette No. 30225). as amended by Government Gazette Date GN 428 Notice 34405 of 29 June 2011 and Government Gazette GNR.203 Notice 38557 of 13 March 2015
[1] GN 789 of 28 August 2007: Regulations for matters relating to the functions of the Tribunal and Rules for the conduct of matters before the National Consumer Tribunal, 2007 (Government Gazette No. 30225).
as amended by Government Gazette Date GN 428 Notice 34405 of 29 June 2011 and Government Gazette GNR.203 Notice 38557 of 13 March 2015
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.