About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 377
|
|
National Credit Regulator v Nedbank Ltd and Others (19638/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 377 (20 November 2009)
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA)
DATE:
20 NOVEMBER 2009
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO TOHER JUDGES
CASE
NUMBER: 19638/2008
In
the matter between:
THE
NATIONAL CREDIT
REGULATOR APPLICANT
And
NEDBANK
LIMITED
FIRST
RESPONDENT
FIRSTRAND
BANK LIMITED
SECOND
RESPONDENT
STANDARD
BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED THIRD
RESPONDENT
ABSA
BANK LIMITED
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
THE
CREDIT PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
THE
FURNITURE TRADERS ASSOCIATION
SIXTH
RESPONDENT
RETAIL
MOTOR INDUSTRY
SEVENTH
RESPONDENT
THE
MINSITER OF JUSTICE AND
EIGHTH
RESPONDENT
CONSITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
THE
MINSITER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
NINTH
RESPONDENT
THE
DEBT COUSELLORS ACCOCAITION
TENTH
RESPONDENT
OF
SOUTH AFRICA
ONECOR
PROPRIETARY) LIMITED
ELEVENTH
RESPONDENT
JUSELIUS.
JOHAN ERIK
TWELVE
RESPONDENT
Du
Plossls, J:
In
the course of the application for leave to appeal the second
respondent in the main application (First Rand Bank Limited) sought
an order to amend paragraph 11 of this court's order by adding
thereto the words “whilst the consumer remains In default”.
The contention is that the order as It stands creates or might create
practical difficulties with its interpretation. No other
party raised
the same or a similar problem.
Paragraph
11 was granted exactly in the terms that the applicant in the main
application sought. Consequently, the order as it stands
is not the
result of an error. To the extent that this court might have the
power to amend the order by reason of an ambiguity,
the order is the
subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. In my view the
question as to whether the order should be
amended should be left to
that court.
The
application to amend this court's order is dismissed.
__________________________
B
R DU PLESSIS
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
On
behalf of the Applicant: Mothle
Jooma Sabdia Inc
Floor,
West Wing
Duncan
Manor
Cnr.
Duncan & Brooks Street
BROOKLYN
PRETORIA
P
O Box 11147 HatfieW 0023
Adv.
C.D.A LOXTONSC
Adv
M A Chohan
On
behalf of the First to Sixth
Respondents:
Werksmans
Inc.
C/O
Edelstein Bosman
220
Lange Street
Nieuw
Muckleneuck
PRETORIA
Adv
M O Kuper SC J
Adv
J M.A. Cane
On
behalf of the first
Respondent:
Adv.
D.E. Van Loggerenberg SC
On
behalf of the Applicant: Mothle
Jooma Sabdia Inc
Floor,
West Wing
Duncan
Manor
Cnr.
Duncan & Brooks Street
BROOKLYN
PRETORIA
P
O Box 11147 HatfieW 0023
Adv.
C.D.A LOXTONSC
Adv
M A Chohan
On
behalf of the First to Sixth
Respondents:
Werksmans
Inc.
C/O
Edelstein Bosman
220
Lange Street
Nieuw
Muckleneuck
PRETORIA
Adv
M O Kuper SC J
Adv
J M.A. Cane
On
behalf of the first
Respondent:
Adv.
D.E. Van Loggerenberg SC
On
Behalf of the
Second
Respondents: Van
Hulsteyns Attorneys
C/O
Savage Jooste and Adams
141
Boshoff Street
Nieuw
Mucklenuek
PRETORIA
Adv.
G. Farter (SC)
Adv.
N Konstantinides
On
behalf of the
Fourth
Respondent: Jay
Motohbi Inc.
C/O
Savage Jooste and Adams
C/O
Savage Jooste and Acams
141
Boshoff Street
Nieuw
Mucfcleneucfc
PRETORIA
Adv.
G H Meyer
On
behalf of the Fifth and
Sixth
Respondent: Routiedge
Modisa
C/0
Adams & Adams
1140
Prospect Street Hatfield
Pretoria
On
behalf of the Eighth and
Ninth
Respondents: The
State Attorney
8
th
Floor, Bothongo Heights
167
Andres Street
PRETORIA
On
behalf of the
Eleventh
Respondent: Coombe
& Associates
Cnr.
Watloo & Fiamink Streets
Silverton
PRETORIA
Adv.
P.F Louw SC
Adv
S Gouws
On
behalf of the
Twelfth
Respondent: Booysens
& CO Inc.
C/O
Velile Tinto & Assoc. Inc
Tinto
House
Cnr
Hans Sirijdom & Disselboom
Wapadrand
Pretoria
Adv
KJ. Kemp SC J