Bester v Lin-Shaw Properties (Pty) Ltd (NCT/233130/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 63 (26 November 2022)

Bester v Lin-Shaw Properties (Pty) Ltd (NCT/233130/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 63 (26 November 2022)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent supplied a defective vehicle to the Applicant, failed to repair the defects as promised, and refused to refund the Applicant within the statutory warranty period. The evidence, including the Applicant's affidavit and expert report, established multiple serious defects present from the date of purchase. The Respondent's failure to file an answering affidavit resulted in all allegations being deemed admitted. The Tribunal held that the Respondent contravened sections 55(2) and 56(2) of the CPA, constituting prohibited conduct. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a refund of the purchase price and related costs but not general damages or indemnities....

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 63
Parties
Applicant: Michael Johannes Bester; Respondent: Lin-Shaw Properties (Pty) Ltd (trading as Sonpark Motors)
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2022
Case Number
NCT/233130/2022/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Default Hearing; Final Determination
Outcome
Application granted in part; Respondent found to have engaged in prohibited conduct and ordered to refund the Applicant.
Judges
MC Peenze, K Moodaliyar, P Manzi-Ntshingila
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty of Quality, Prohibited Conduct, Voetstoots Exclusion, Refund of Purchase Price
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty of Quality Prohibited Conduct Voetstoots Exclusion Refund of Purchase Price

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Johannes Bester

Applicant

Lin-Shaw Properties (Pty) Ltd (trading as Sonpark Motors)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Default Hearing; Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent contravened section 55(2) and 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act by supplying a defective vehicle to the Applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to a refund and other relief under the CPA.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, including general damages and indemnities.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent supplied a defective vehicle to the Applicant, failed to repair the defects as promised, and refused to refund the Applicant within the statutory warranty period. The evidence, including the Applicant's affidavit and expert report, established multiple serious defects present from the date of purchase. The Respondent's failure to file an answering affidavit resulted in all allegations being deemed admitted. The Tribunal held that the Respondent contravened sections 55(2) and 56(2) of the CPA, constituting prohibited conduct. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a refund of the purchase price and related costs but not general damages or indemnities....

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; Respondent found to have engaged in prohibited conduct and ordered to refund the Applicant.

Orders

  • The Respondent contravened section 55(2) and 56(2) of the CPA.
  • The contraventions are declared prohibited conduct in terms of section 150(a) of the NCA.