Afca Trading and Supply (Pty) Ltd v City Square Trading and Supply 604 (Pty) Ltd (227/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 29 (18 February 2021)

Afca Trading and Supply (Pty) Ltd v City Square Trading and Supply 604 (Pty) Ltd (227/2018) [2021] ZAFSHC 29 (18 February 2021)

The court found that section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act establishes a clear requirement that a consumer must exhaust all available remedies before approaching a court. The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that it had attempted to resolve the dispute through the mechanisms provided by the Act, such as the Motor Industry Ombudsman. The plaintiff's assertion that it was not obliged to exhaust these remedies was incorrect. The legislature intended for disputes to be resolved speedily and cost-effectively through the Tribunal and other bodies established under the Act, thereby reducing the burden on the courts. As the plaintiff did not comply with section 69, the court lacked...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 29
Parties
Plaintiff: Afca Trading & Supply (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: City Square Trading 604 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Case Number
227/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim struck for non-compliance with section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act; costs awarded to defendant.
Judges
Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Jurisdiction, Exhaustion of Remedies, Latent Defects, Sale of Goods
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Jurisdiction Exhaustion of Remedies Latent Defects Sale of Goods

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afca Trading & Supply (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

City Square Trading 604 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter in light of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff exhausted all remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act before approaching the court.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim should be struck for non-compliance with statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act establishes a clear requirement that a consumer must exhaust all available remedies before approaching a court. The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that it had attempted to resolve the dispute through the mechanisms provided by the Act, such as the Motor Industry Ombudsman. The plaintiff's assertion that it was not obliged to exhaust these remedies was incorrect. The legislature intended for disputes to be resolved speedily and cost-effectively through the Tribunal and other bodies established under the Act, thereby reducing the burden on the courts. As the plaintiff did not comply with section 69, the court lacked...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim struck for non-compliance with section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act; costs awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s claim is struck for non-compliance with section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  • Plaintiff to pay the costs.