Singh v MFC, A Division of Nedbank Limited; In Re MFC, A Division of Nedbank Limited v Singh (NCT/94274/2017/141) [2018] ZANCT 52 (23 April 2018)

Singh v MFC, A Division of Nedbank Limited; In Re MFC, A Division of Nedbank Limited v Singh (NCT/94274/2017/141) [2018] ZANCT 52 (23 April 2018)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely the need to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Respondent's allegations and difficulties in accessing electronic records. The Tribunal determined that the Respondent would not suffer prejudice if condonation was granted, as the Applicant would in any event be required to answer the allegations. The interests of justice are best served by admitting the answering affidavit, allowing the Tribunal to consider all relevant information in adjudicating the main application. The Tribunal concluded that good cause was shown and condonation should be granted.

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 52
Parties
Respondent: Amith Kedhar Singh; Applicant: MFC, A Division of Nedbank Limited
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2018
Case Number
NCT/94274/2017/141
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Answering Affidavit
Outcome
Condonation granted for the late filing of the Applicant's answering affidavit.
Judges
FK Manamela
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Tribunal Rules, Answering Affidavit
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Tribunal Rules Answering Affidavit

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amith Kedhar Singh

Respondent

MFC, A Division of Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Answering Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant has shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of its answering affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent will suffer prejudice if condonation is granted.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the granting of condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely the need to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Respondent's allegations and difficulties in accessing electronic records. The Tribunal determined that the Respondent would not suffer prejudice if condonation was granted, as the Applicant would in any event be required to answer the allegations. The interests of justice are best served by admitting the answering affidavit, allowing the Tribunal to consider all relevant information in adjudicating the main application. The Tribunal concluded that good cause was shown and condonation should be granted.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for the late filing of the Applicant's answering affidavit.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted to the Applicant for the late filing of the answering affidavit.
  • The Respondent may file a replying affidavit in accordance with the Tribunal Rules within 10 days of receipt of this order.