Bester v Naushaad's Car Sales Auto CC t/a Auto Belgravia (NCT/227713/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 39 (18 July 2022)

Bester v Naushaad's Car Sales Auto CC t/a Auto Belgravia (NCT/227713/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 39 (18 July 2022)

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim, although falling within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and being of substantial importance to the applicant, was filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. Section 116 of the CPA imposes a strict limitation period, and the Tribunal is bound by recent High Court authority confirming that it has no power to interrupt prescription. As the application was filed outside the prescribed period, there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal adjudicating the claim. Leave to refer is refused.

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 39
Parties
Applicant: Henry Bester; Respondent: Naushaad's Car Sales Auto CC t/a Auto Belgravia
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 July 2022
Case Number
NCT/227713/2022/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal
Outcome
Application for leave to refer is refused due to prescription.
Judges
H Alwar
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Prescription, False or Misleading Representations
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Prescription False or Misleading Representations

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Bester

Applicant

Naushaad's Car Sales Auto CC t/a Auto Belgravia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim under the Consumer Protection Act has prescribed due to lapse of time.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant leave to refer the complaint despite the prescription period.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent failed to disclose material defects and accident history of the vehicle to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim, although falling within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and being of substantial importance to the applicant, was filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. Section 116 of the CPA imposes a strict limitation period, and the Tribunal is bound by recent High Court authority confirming that it has no power to interrupt prescription. As the application was filed outside the prescribed period, there is no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal adjudicating the claim. Leave to refer is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer is refused due to prescription.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for leave to refer is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.