Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v No Finance Cars v National Credit Regulator (NCT/121875/2018/56(1)) [2019] ZANCT 88 (22 May 2019)

Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd v No Finance Cars v National Credit Regulator (NCT/121875/2018/56(1)) [2019] ZANCT 88 (22 May 2019)

The Tribunal found that the applicant attempted to file its replying affidavit within the prescribed period, but due to an error by the commissioner of oaths, the affidavit was not properly commissioned. The delay in filing a properly commissioned affidavit was minimal and not attributable to the applicant. The respondent was not prejudiced by the delay, as the contents of the affidavit remained unchanged and the application was not opposed. Considering the interests of justice and the relevant factors, the Tribunal held that good cause was shown and condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit should be granted.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 88
Parties
Applicant: Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd t/a No Finance Cars; Respondent: National Credit Regulator
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Case Number
NCT/121875/2018/56(1)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Replying Affidavit
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit is granted.
Judges
A. Potwana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Replying Affidavit, Tribunal Rules
Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Replying Affidavit Tribunal Rules

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Springs Car Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd t/a No Finance Cars

Applicant

National Credit Regulator

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the delay was minimal and excusable under the Tribunal's rules.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the late filing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant attempted to file its replying affidavit within the prescribed period, but due to an error by the commissioner of oaths, the affidavit was not properly commissioned. The delay in filing a properly commissioned affidavit was minimal and not attributable to the applicant. The respondent was not prejudiced by the delay, as the contents of the affidavit remained unchanged and the application was not opposed. Considering the interests of justice and the relevant factors, the Tribunal held that good cause was shown and condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit should be granted.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit is granted.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's replying affidavit is hereby granted.
  • No order is made as to costs.