Steynberg v HA Harper (Sole Proprietor) and Another (NCT/133313/2019/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 133 (8 August 2019)

Steynberg v HA Harper (Sole Proprietor) and Another (NCT/133313/2019/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 133 (8 August 2019)

The Tribunal determined that, in the interests of due process and to allow the applicant to file an amendment application under Rule 15, the matter should be postponed sine die. The respondent's absence, due to an unsubstantiated claim of hospitalisation, did not prejudice the applicant's request for postponement. The Tribunal found that postponement would allow for proper ventilation of the issues and ensure that the main application is procedurally sound before being heard.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 133
Parties
Applicant: Ernst Frederick David Steynberg; Respondent: HA Harper (sole proprietor) t/a Umdloti Construction
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2019
Case Number
NCT/133313/2019/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Postponement Order
Outcome
The matter is postponed sine die with no order as to costs.
Judges
L Best
Legal Topics
Postponement, Leave to Refer, Consumer Protection Act, Unopposed Application
Civil Procedure Postponement Leave to Refer Consumer Protection Act Unopposed Application

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernst Frederick David Steynberg

Applicant

HA Harper (sole proprietor) t/a Umdloti Construction

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Postponement Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matter should be postponed to allow the applicant to file an amendment application under Rule 15.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of the respondent, who claimed to be in hospital, affects the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal determined that, in the interests of due process and to allow the applicant to file an amendment application under Rule 15, the matter should be postponed sine die. The respondent's absence, due to an unsubstantiated claim of hospitalisation, did not prejudice the applicant's request for postponement. The Tribunal found that postponement would allow for proper ventilation of the issues and ensure that the main application is procedurally sound before being heard.

Court Disposition

The matter is postponed sine die with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed sine die.
  • There is no order as to costs.