Du Toit v Engines for Africa (Denver) (Pty) Ltd (NCT/343426/2024/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 10 (31 January 2025)

Du Toit v Engines for Africa (Denver) (Pty) Ltd (NCT/343426/2024/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 10 (31 January 2025)

The Tribunal found that the second engine supplied by the respondent was defective, as it failed to operate as intended and exhibited multiple faults, including a faulty turbo, oil leaks, and excessive breathing. The respondent did not dispute these facts, and under Tribunal rules, the applicant's allegations were deemed admitted. The Tribunal held that the respondent's refusal to refund the applicant contravened section 56(2), read with sections 55 and 53 of the Consumer Protection Act, amounting to prohibited conduct. The applicant is entitled to a refund of the purchase price. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award damages for consequential costs, but the applicant may pursue...

Citation
[2025] ZANCT 10
Parties
Applicant: Marianca du Toit; Respondent: Engines for Africa (Denver) (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Case Number
NCT/343426/2024/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The application is granted. The respondent is ordered to refund the applicant the purchase price of the defective engine and to arrange for its return at the respondent's cost.
Judges
S Hockey, A Potwana, P Manzi-Ntshingila
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Defective Goods, Refund Claim, Prohibited Conduct
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Defective Goods Refund Claim Prohibited Conduct

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marianca du Toit

Applicant

Engines for Africa (Denver) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent supplied goods that were defective and not fit for purpose.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund under section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's refusal to refund constitutes prohibited conduct under the CPA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the second engine supplied by the respondent was defective, as it failed to operate as intended and exhibited multiple faults, including a faulty turbo, oil leaks, and excessive breathing. The respondent did not dispute these facts, and under Tribunal rules, the applicant's allegations were deemed admitted. The Tribunal held that the respondent's refusal to refund the applicant contravened section 56(2), read with sections 55 and 53 of the Consumer Protection Act, amounting to prohibited conduct. The applicant is entitled to a refund of the purchase price. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award damages for consequential costs, but the applicant may pursue...

Court Disposition

The application is granted. The respondent is ordered to refund the applicant the purchase price of the defective engine and to arrange for its return at the respondent's cost.

Orders

  • The respondent contravened section 56(2) read with sections 55(2) and 53 by refusing to refund the applicant the purchase price for the defective second engine.
  • The contravention is declared prohibited conduct.