Tengizak CC v National Credit Regulator (NCT/91474/2017/57(1)) [2018] ZANCT 19 (6 February 2018)

Tengizak CC v National Credit Regulator (NCT/91474/2017/57(1)) [2018] ZANCT 19 (6 February 2018)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's Answering Affidavit was filed one day late due to logistical difficulties in obtaining the necessary signature. The explanation for the delay was reasonable and not indicative of any intention to delay proceedings. The Applicant did not oppose the condonation application. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the allegations in the main matter, including the potential deregistration of the Respondent, and concluded that the Respondent would suffer prejudice if not allowed to respond. The interests of justice require that all relevant facts be placed before the Tribunal, and the minimal delay does not warrant refusal of condonation....

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 19
Parties
Applicant: Tengizak CC; Respondent: National Credit Regulator
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2018
Case Number
NCT/91474/2017/57(1)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's Answering Affidavit is granted.
Judges
H Devraj
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit, National Credit Act, Affordability Assessment, Credit Provider Registration
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Condonation Late Filing of Affidavit National Credit Act Affordability Assessment Credit Provider Registration

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tengizak CC

Applicant

National Credit Regulator

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the Respondent's Answering Affidavit should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require condonation to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's Answering Affidavit was filed one day late due to logistical difficulties in obtaining the necessary signature. The explanation for the delay was reasonable and not indicative of any intention to delay proceedings. The Applicant did not oppose the condonation application. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the allegations in the main matter, including the potential deregistration of the Respondent, and concluded that the Respondent would suffer prejudice if not allowed to respond. The interests of justice require that all relevant facts be placed before the Tribunal, and the minimal delay does not warrant refusal of condonation....

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's Answering Affidavit is granted.

Orders

  • The late filing of the Respondent's Answering Affidavit is condoned.
  • There is no order as to costs.