South Africa: National Consumer Tribunal Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: National Consumer Tribunal >> 2018 >> [2018] ZANCT 38

| Noteup | LawCite

Zamisa v NMI Durban South Coast Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Union Motors South Coast (NCT/84084/2017/75(1)) [2018] ZANCT 38 (13 June 2018)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL

HELD IN UHMHLANGHA RIDGE

Case  number: NCT/84084/2017/75(1)

In the matter between:

NONHLANHLA AURELIA ZAMISA...................................................................APPLICANT

and

NMI DURBAN SOUTH COAST MOTORS (PTY) LTD T/A UNION..................RESPONDENT

MOTORS SOUTH COAST


Coram:

Ms PA Beck .......-Presiding Member

Prof B Dumisa....-Tribunal Member

Ms MMD Nkomo.-Tribunal Member

 

Date of Hearing                       12 June 2018

POSTPONEMENT ORDER

1. The Applicant represented herself at the hearing

2. The Respondent was represented at the hearing by an attorney, Natasha Louise Schwenn.

3. The Respondent filed an application for the postponement of the matter for the following reasons:

3.1     Short notice from the Tribunal that the matter would be proceeding on an opposed basis;

3.2     That such short notice gave the Respondent insufficient time to prepare for the hearing and to arrange for all the Respondent's witnesses to be present and

3.3      The Tribunal had not provided the Respondent with an index.

4. The Applicant opposed the application for a postponement on the basis that the Respondent was not properly before the Tribunal because the Respondent had not filed the Respondent's answering affidavit in the time frame allowed by the Rules of the Tribunal.[1]

5. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had amended the Applicant's founding affidavit and that an application for condonation for the late filing of the Applicant's corrected affidavit was granted by the Tribunal.

6. The rules of natural justice dictate that both parties be given a fair opportunity to present their ' respective cases before the Tribunal. This right will be unfairly infringed if the Respondent is not given a fair opportunity to present its version and answer to the Applicant's allegations.

7. Rule 34(2) provides that: "The Tribunal may grant the order on good cause shown".

8. The Respondent also requested that a pre-hearing conference be held, prior to the hearing of the matter, in order to narrow the issues.

9. Neither party asked for a cost order.

10. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order:

ORDER

(i)     The matter is adjourned sine die.

(ii)     The Registrar must arrange for a pre-hearing conference prior to the hearing of the matter.

(ii)     No order is made as to costs.

 

 

THUS SIGNED AND DATED ON THIS 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

{Signed}

PA BECK

PRESIDING MEMBER


Prof B Dumisa and Ms MMD Nkomo, concurring.


[1] Published under GN 789 in GG 30225 of 28 August 2007 as amended by GenN 428 in GG 34405 of June 2011 (published in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008). GN R203 in GG 38557 of 13 March 2015 and GN 157 in GG 39663 of 4 February 2016.