Brander obo Tebogo Trust v TD Motor Mania (Pty) Ltd t/a Inspectacar-Gezina (NCT/290237/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 25 (9 April 2024)

Brander obo Tebogo Trust v TD Motor Mania (Pty) Ltd t/a Inspectacar-Gezina (NCT/290237/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 25 (9 April 2024)

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreement reached between the applicant and respondent was competent, proper, and not in conflict with the Consumer Protection Act or public policy. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to confirm the agreement as a consent order in terms of Rule 20, as the requirements for such confirmation were satisfied and both parties requested the Tribunal to make the agreement an order. No order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 25
Parties
Applicant: Jerry Brander obo Tebogo Trust; Respondent: TD Motor Mania (Pty) Ltd t/a Inspectacar-Gezina
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2024
Case Number
NCT/290237/2023/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Consent Order Following Settlement at Hearing
Outcome
Settlement agreement confirmed as a consent order; no order as to costs.
Judges
S Hockey, M Peenze, Z Ntuli
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Settlement Agreement, Consent Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Settlement Agreement Consent Order

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

Jerry Brander obo Tebogo Trust

Applicant

TD Motor Mania (Pty) Ltd t/a Inspectacar-Gezina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Consent Order Following Settlement at Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement reached between the parties is competent and proper under the Consumer Protection Act and Tribunal rules.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should confirm the settlement agreement as a consent order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreement reached between the applicant and respondent was competent, proper, and not in conflict with the Consumer Protection Act or public policy. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to confirm the agreement as a consent order in terms of Rule 20, as the requirements for such confirmation were satisfied and both parties requested the Tribunal to make the agreement an order. No order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Settlement agreement confirmed as a consent order; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The settlement agreement concluded between the parties on 8 April 2024, annexed hereto marked 'X', is confirmed as an order of the Tribunal in terms of rule 20.
  • There is no order as to costs.