Tofie v Maedimole and Another (NCT/287776/2023/165) [2025] ZANCT 13 (7 April 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZANCT 13
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- S Hockey
- Case number
- NCT/287776/2023/165
More details
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Panel
- S Hockey
- Case number
- NCT/287776/2023/165
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the original consent order contained an erroneous acceptance letter and that the applicant was entitled to seek a variation to correct this error. The Tribunal was satisfied that the correct acceptance letter, dated 6 February 2025, accurately reflected the agreement between the parties and complied with the requirements of the National Credit Act. The variation did not alter the substantive rights or obligations of the parties but merely rectified the documentary record. The Tribunal confirmed the repayment agreements as an order in terms of section 150 of the NCA and drew the parties' attention to the statutory provisions regarding clearance certificates and enforcement. The Tribunal warned that non-compliance with the order constitutes an offence under section 160(1) of the NCA.
Court disposition
The consent order is varied to replace the erroneous acceptance letter with the correct version; all other terms remain unchanged.
Orders
- The erroneous acceptance letter is replaced with the correct acceptance letter dated 6 February 2025, attached as annexure A1.
- The repayment agreements are confirmed as an order of the Tribunal in terms of section 150 of the National Credit Act.
- The parties are reminded of their rights and obligations under sections 71(1), 71(5)(a), and 152 of the National Credit Act.
- Failure to comply with the order constitutes an offence under section 160(1) of the National Credit Act.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rushdie Tofie
ApplicantLebone Vulry Maedimole
RespondentWesBank, a division of FirstRand Bank Limited
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Variation Application / Varied Consent Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the previously granted consent order should be varied to correct an erroneous acceptance letter.
- 02
Whether the rectified acceptance letter satisfies the requirements of the National Credit Act for debt rearrangement.
- 03
What are the legal consequences of the varied order for the parties under the National Credit Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought a variation of the original consent order on the basis that the acceptance letter attached to the order contained an error. The applicant submitted that the correct acceptance letter, dated 6 February 2025, should replace the erroneous one to accurately reflect the agreement between the parties and ensure compliance with the National Credit Act.
- Respondent
- The credit provider did not oppose the variation and confirmed that the correct acceptance letter, as attached, reflects the true agreement between the parties. The respondents accepted that the repayment agreements should be confirmed as an order of the Tribunal and that the legal consequences under the National Credit Act should apply.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
National Credit Act, 34 of 2005, sections 86(7)(b), 138(1), 150
A consent order may be varied to correct errors if the variation does not affect the substantive rights of the parties and ensures compliance with statutory requirements.
- 02
National Credit Act, 34 of 2005, section 71(1)
A consumer whose debts have been re-arranged may be issued with a clearance certificate by the debt counsellor if all requirements are met.
- 03
National Credit Act, 34 of 2005, section 71(5)
Upon receiving a clearance certificate, a credit bureau or the National Credit Register must expunge the record of the debt rearrangement.
- 04
National Credit Act, 34 of 2005, section 152
Any decision, judgment or order of the Tribunal may be served, executed and enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the original consent order contained an erroneous acceptance letter and that the applicant was entitled to seek a variation to correct this error. The Tribunal was satisfied that the correct acceptance letter, dated 6 February 2025, accurately reflected the agreement between the parties and complied with the requirements of the National Credit Act. The variation did not alter the substantive rights or obligations of the parties but merely rectified the documentary record. The Tribunal confirmed the repayment agreements as an order in terms of section 150 of the NCA and drew the parties' attention to the statutory provisions regarding clearance certificates and enforcement. The Tribunal warned that non-compliance with the order constitutes an offence under section 160(1) of the NCA.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal emphasised that parties must ensure all documentary evidence attached to consent orders is accurate and complete to avoid unnecessary procedural delays.
- The Tribunal noted that enforcement of its orders carries the same legal weight as orders of the High Court, underscoring the seriousness of compliance.
Court disposition
The consent order is varied to replace the erroneous acceptance letter with the correct version; all other terms remain unchanged.
- The erroneous acceptance letter is replaced with the correct acceptance letter dated 6 February 2025, attached as annexure A1.
- The repayment agreements are confirmed as an order of the Tribunal in terms of section 150 of the National Credit Act.
- The parties are reminded of their rights and obligations under sections 71(1), 71(5)(a), and 152 of the National Credit Act.
- Failure to comply with the order constitutes an offence under section 160(1) of the National Credit Act.
Source and reliance status
National Consumer Tribunal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
National Consumer Tribunal
Order
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER
TRIBUNAL
HELD IN CENTURION
Case number: NCT/287776/2023/165
In the matter between:
RUSHDIE
TOFIE
APPLICANT And
LEBONE
VULRY MAEDIMOLE 1ST
CONSUMER AND WESBANK,
A DIVISION
OF FIRSTRAND
BANK LIMITED 1ST
CREDIT PROVIDER
VARIED CONSENT ORDER
Whereas an order was granted in this matter on 10 November 2023, whereafter an error was discovered in the acceptance letter attached to that order, a variation of the order was sought and is granted herewith. In terms of the variation, the erroneous acceptance letter is replaced with a rectified acceptance letter, which is attached hereto as annexure “A1”. No other changes have been made to the order. Now, therefore, the varied order reads as follows:
1. The Tribunal, having considered the papers filed of record, is satisfied that the applicant and the credit provider are parties to a debt re-arrangement facilitated by the applicant.
2. In terms of section 86(7)(b), read with section 138(1) of the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 (the NCA), the following order is made:
a. The correct acceptance letter issued by third respondent and dated 6 February2025 is attached to this order as annexure A1; and
b. The repayment agreements are confirmed as an order of the Tribunal in terms of section 150 of the NCA.
3. The parties' attention is drawn to sections 71(1),71(5)(a) and 152 of the NCA, which is briefly summarised as follows:
· Section 71(1)
A consumer, whose debts have been re-arranged, may be issued with a clearance certificate by the debt counsellor if all the requirements in terms of section 71 have been met.
· Section 71(5)
Upon receiving a copy of a clearance certificate, a credit bureau, or the National Credit Register must expunge from its records the fact that the consumer was subject to the relevant debt re-arrangement order or agreement.
· Section 152
Any decision, judgment or order of the Tribunal may be served, executed and enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.
4. The parties are warned that failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal constitutes an offence in terms of section 160(1) of the NCA.
Thus done and signed on 7 April 2025
S Hockey
Presiding Tribunal member
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.