Thuketana v Transunion Credit Bureau (Pty) Ltd (NCT/326495/2024/141(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 72 (3 December 2024)

Thuketana v Transunion Credit Bureau (Pty) Ltd (NCT/326495/2024/141(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 72 (3 December 2024)

The Tribunal found that the obligation to notify the applicant before listing the SARS judgment rests with SARS as the source of information, not with the respondent credit bureau. The respondent provided credible evidence supporting the listing, namely the SARS judgment, and took reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information. The 62-cent discrepancy in the listed amount was deemed trivial and did not materially misrepresent the applicant's credit status. The Tribunal applied the de minimis non curat lex principle, holding that such a minor discrepancy does not warrant judicial intervention or removal of the listing. The Tribunal further held that it does not have...

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 72
Parties
Applicant: Makhajana Phillip Thuketana; Respondent: TransUnion Credit Bureau (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2024
Case Number
NCT/326495/2024/141(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Unopposed Hearing; Application for Review and Redress Under Section 141(1)(b) of the NCA
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Z Ntuli, C Sassman, CJ Ntsoane
Legal Topics
Credit Bureau Listing, Accuracy of Consumer Credit Information, Notification Requirements, De Minimis Non Curat Lex, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Credit Bureau Listing Accuracy of Consumer Credit Information Notification Requirements De Minimis Non Curat Lex Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makhajana Phillip Thuketana

Applicant

TransUnion Credit Bureau (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Unopposed Hearing; Application for Review and Redress Under Section 141(1)(b) of the NCA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was legally obliged to notify the applicant before listing the SARS judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent failed to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the listed consumer credit information.
  3. 3 Whether the 62-cent discrepancy in the listed judgment amount justifies removal of the listing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the obligation to notify the applicant before listing the SARS judgment rests with SARS as the source of information, not with the respondent credit bureau. The respondent provided credible evidence supporting the listing, namely the SARS judgment, and took reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information. The 62-cent discrepancy in the listed amount was deemed trivial and did not materially misrepresent the applicant's credit status. The Tribunal applied the de minimis non curat lex principle, holding that such a minor discrepancy does not warrant judicial intervention or removal of the listing. The Tribunal further held that it does not have...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.