Tloubatla v Xpert Decision Systems (Pty) Ltd (NCT-314622-2024-165 - rule 24) [2024] ZANCT 36 (7 September 2024)

Tloubatla v Xpert Decision Systems (Pty) Ltd (NCT-314622-2024-165 - rule 24) [2024] ZANCT 36 (7 September 2024)

The Tribunal found that the applicant's representative, Ms Matshiakgotshi, was absent from the hearing without explanation despite proper notification and previous warnings. Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to dismiss the matter in such circumstances. No condonation application was made, and the absence was not justified. The section 165 application was procedurally flawed, as it sought to set aside an order rather than vary or rescind it within the confines of section 165. None of the statutory grounds for rescission or variation were met, and the correct procedure would have been an appeal under Rule 26. The Tribunal determined that the application was frivolous and vexatious, and the...

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 36
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Makitemela Tloubatla; Respondent: Xpert Decision Systems (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2024
Case Number
NCT-314622-2024-165 - rule 24
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application Under Section 165 to Vary a Refusal Order
Outcome
Application dismissed under rule 24(1) due to applicant's absence and procedural defects.
Judges
P Manzi-Ntshingila, MC Peenze, S Mbhele
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Variation of Order, Non Appearance, Condonation, Frivolous and Vexatious Application
Civil Procedure National Credit Act Variation of Order Non Appearance Condonation Frivolous and Vexatious 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Makitemela Tloubatla

Applicant

Xpert Decision Systems (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application Under Section 165 to Vary a Refusal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should condone the applicant's absence and proceed with the section 165 variation application.
  2. 2 Whether the section 165 application for variation is procedurally and substantively valid.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's representative's conduct warrants reprimand or cost consequences.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant's representative, Ms Matshiakgotshi, was absent from the hearing without explanation despite proper notification and previous warnings. Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to dismiss the matter in such circumstances. No condonation application was made, and the absence was not justified. The section 165 application was procedurally flawed, as it sought to set aside an order rather than vary or rescind it within the confines of section 165. None of the statutory grounds for rescission or variation were met, and the correct procedure would have been an appeal under Rule 26. The Tribunal determined that the application was frivolous and vexatious, and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed under rule 24(1) due to applicant's absence and procedural defects.

Orders

  • The application to vary the consent order granted on 8 February 2024 under case number NCT/279819/2023/141(1)(b) is dismissed.
  • Ms Cynthia Martha E Matshiakgotshi from Credit Information Academy SA (Pty) Ltd is reprimanded for her absence at the hearing of 6 September 2024.