National Consumer Tribunal Annual Report 2011/12 National Consumer Tribunal 2011-12 | Page 38

Adjudication (continued)
Similarly standards were set for credit providers in the Piet Cash Loans CC matter 11 . As a result
of the Tribunal defining prohibited conduct, the credit industry as a whole obtains standards and
precedents against which to evaluate its own practices and conduct, to ensure that they do not
fall foul of the law.
Notable judgments
Below are summaries of notable judgments during the year under review.
1. In the matter between Global Pact 417 (Pty) Ltd, Bazise Tours CC, Altious Trading
232 (Pty) Ltd, Dovacs Investment 860 (Pty) Ltd, Sizisa Ukhanyo Trading 398 CC,
Coalition Trading 918 CC, Dulsie Transport CC v Mercedes Benz
(NCT/40/2009/149(1)(P), NCT/41/2009/149(1)(P), NCT/42/2009/149(1)(P),
NCT/43/2009/149(1)(P), NCT/44/2009/149(1)(P), NCT/49/2009/149(1)(P),
NCT/60/2009/149(1)(P))
This was an application for interim relief in terms of section 149(1) of the NCA. The seven
applications were based on common grounds and were launched by juristic persons. They
involved a BEE initiative by Mercedes Benz Financial Services (MBFS) in terms of which it
promoted the owner-driver concept when selling Mercedes Benz trucks valued at over R1-million
each and trailers costing less than R1m. The applicants conclude the translations with MBFS as
juristic persons.
The principal debt of each of the applicants as businesses was valued at more than R1,4m. The
applicants fell into arrears with their monthly repayments with MBFS. MBFS took legal action
against them and had started repossessions of the trucks and trailers.
The applicants approached the Tribunal for redress. They wanted their arrears written off, monthly
instalments reduced, and duration of their credit agreements lengthened so that they could pay
lower instalments. They argued that the agreements entered into between the parties were credit
agreements and specifically large agreements in terms of section 9(4)(b) of the NCA. As a result
of the agreements being large credit agreements, their businesses, which operated as juristic
persons, were subject to the protection of the NCA and accordingly eligible for interim relief in
terms of the NCA.
The respondent, MBFS, argued that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the transactions
are excluded from the NCA in terms of section 4(1)(a) because the consumers are juristic persons
with net asset values of more than R1-million each. It further argued that the Tribunal does not
have the authority to:
a. Amend or suspend the interest rates legally agreed to by the parties;
b. Extend the period of debt repayment;
c. Order the writing-off of balances due and payable to credit providers.
In its decision, the Tribunal applied sections 4(1)(1), 7(1) and 9(4)(b) of the NCA. The Tribunal
dismissed the applications. It held that the submission of MBFS that the Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction is valid. The net asset value of each applicant was over R1-million. This excluded the
applicants from being considered as consumers in terms of section 4(1)(a) of the NCA.
The Tribunal further held that section 9(4) does not create any ambiguity about the application of
sections 4 and 7 of the Act. The legislature set R1-million in asset value or annual turnover as the
threshold for any juristic person to remain within the provisions of the NCA.
11
NCT/654/2010/57(1)(a)(c)(P).
Annual Report 2011
page 36 | national consumer tribunal