Van Niekerk and Another v Gig Motors (Pty) Ltd (NCT-244592-2022-148 - Rule 34) [2023] ZANCT 18 (24 April 2023)

Van Niekerk and Another v Gig Motors (Pty) Ltd (NCT-244592-2022-148 - Rule 34) [2023] ZANCT 18 (24 April 2023)

The Tribunal found that although the applicants acted promptly upon notification of non-compliance and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, the statutory time bar set by section 116(1)(a) of the CPA and section 166(1)(a) of the NCA is absolute and cannot be condoned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is a creature of statute and has no inherent jurisdiction to condone non-compliance with statutory time limits. The delay caused by the NCC does not interrupt or extend the prescription period, as neither the CPA nor the NCA provides for such interruption. The applicants' reliance on the Prescription Act is misplaced, as its provisions do not override the specific time limits set by...

Citation
[2023] ZANCT 18
Parties
Applicant: Warren Wagner van Niekerk; Applicant: Kate Mathilda van Niekerk; Respondent: GIG Motors (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2023
Case Number
NCT-244592-2022-148
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Application to Appeal to Full Panel
Outcome
Application for condonation of late filing refused; Tribunal barred from hearing the matter due to expiry of statutory time limit.
Judges
Z Ntuli
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Consumer Protection Act, Prescription, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Condonation Late Filing Consumer Protection Act Prescription Appeal Procedure

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warren Wagner van Niekerk

Applicant

Kate Mathilda van Niekerk

Applicant

GIG Motors (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Application to Appeal to Full Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether good cause is shown to condone the late filing of the applicants' application to appeal to a full panel of the Tribunal in terms of section 148(1) of the NCA.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone non-compliance with the statutory time bar set in section 116(1)(a) of the CPA and section 166(1)(a) of the NCA.
  3. 3 Whether the delay was caused by the applicants or by the National Consumer Commission and whether this affects the prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that although the applicants acted promptly upon notification of non-compliance and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, the statutory time bar set by section 116(1)(a) of the CPA and section 166(1)(a) of the NCA is absolute and cannot be condoned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is a creature of statute and has no inherent jurisdiction to condone non-compliance with statutory time limits. The delay caused by the NCC does not interrupt or extend the prescription period, as neither the CPA nor the NCA provides for such interruption. The applicants' reliance on the Prescription Act is misplaced, as its provisions do not override the specific time limits set by...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of late filing refused; Tribunal barred from hearing the matter due to expiry of statutory time limit.

Orders

  • The application to condone the late filing of the application to appeal to a full panel of the Tribunal in terms of section 148(1) is refused.
  • There is no cost order.