Williams v National Credit Regulator and Another ;In Re National Credit Regulator v Grundling and Another (NCT/123277/2019/137(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 56 (30 April 2019)

Williams v National Credit Regulator and Another ;In Re National Credit Regulator v Grundling and Another (NCT/123277/2019/137(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 56 (30 April 2019)

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the answering affidavit was negligible, amounting to only two business days. Williams provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, having been on leave and needing to retrieve archived documents. The Tribunal considered the importance of the matter, the prospects of success, and the potential prejudice to Williams if condonation were refused. As neither the NCR nor Grundling opposed the application, and given that the interests of justice and fairness require that parties be allowed to fully ventilate their cases, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 56
Parties
Applicant: Nadeem Williams; Respondent: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: Geraldine Grundling
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2019
Case Number
NCT/123277/2019/137(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit
Outcome
Condonation granted for the late filing of Williams's answering affidavit.
Judges
M Nkomo
Legal Topics
Condonation, National Credit Act, Debt Counselling, Late Filing, Tribunal Rules
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Condonation National Credit Act Debt Counselling Late Filing Tribunal Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nadeem Williams

Applicant

National Credit Regulator

Respondent

Geraldine Grundling

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the applicant's answering affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the degree of lateness and explanation provided constitute good cause under Tribunal Rule 34.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice and fairness require condonation in this matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the answering affidavit was negligible, amounting to only two business days. Williams provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, having been on leave and needing to retrieve archived documents. The Tribunal considered the importance of the matter, the prospects of success, and the potential prejudice to Williams if condonation were refused. As neither the NCR nor Grundling opposed the application, and given that the interests of justice and fairness require that parties be allowed to fully ventilate their cases, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for the late filing of Williams's answering affidavit.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted to Williams for the late filing of her answering affidavit.
  • The National Credit Regulator must file a replying affidavit in response to Williams's answering affidavit.