Kwazulu-Natal Consumer Tribunal and Another v Khabelimsongo Construction (Pty) Ltd (KZNCT12/2022) [2022] ZACONAF 17 (29 November 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZACONAF 17
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Consumer Affairs Court
- Panel
- B Dumisa, P Dabideen, N Nursoo
- Case number
- KZNCT12/2022
More details
- Court
- Consumer Affairs Court
- Panel
- B Dumisa, P Dabideen, N Nursoo
- Case number
- KZNCT12/2022
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to deliver the contracted goods and did not provide credible evidence for the alleged looting incident. The respondent's conduct constituted a breach of contract and prohibited conduct under the Consumer Protection Act. The parties negotiated and signed a settlement agreement, which provided for delivery of the machines or, failing that, a refund of the deposit. The Tribunal was satisfied that the settlement agreement resolved the dispute and, in accordance with the parties' request and statutory provisions, made the agreement an order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed that the terms of the settlement agreement are enforceable and that the applicant may seek enforcement and interest if the respondent fails to comply.
Court disposition
Settlement agreement confirmed and made an order of the Tribunal; terms enforceable; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The settlement agreement dated 8 November 2022 is confirmed and made an order of the KwaZulu-Natal Consumer Tribunal.
- Should the respondent fail to deliver the machines, the full deposit of R21,840 becomes immediately due and payable to the applicant, with interest at the prescribed rate.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kwazulu-Natal Consumer Tribunal
Applicant Counsel: Ryan MoodleyNceba Dlamini
Applicant Counsel: Nceba DlaminiKhabelimsongo Construction (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Ashlin NaidooAmounts and remedies
- Deposit Paid for Detergent Mixer Machines: ZAR 21,840
- Total Contract Price for Detergent Mixer Machines: ZAR 31,200
- Installment to Be Paid After Delivery (first): ZAR 4,900
- Installment to Be Paid After Delivery (second): ZAR 9,360
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Procedure / Settlement Order After Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent breached the agreement by failing to deliver the detergent mixer machines as contracted.
- 02
Whether the respondent's conduct constitutes prohibited conduct under the Consumer Protection Act.
- 03
Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of the deposit paid for undelivered goods.
- 04
Whether the settlement agreement should be made an order of the Tribunal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the respondent failed to deliver two detergent mixer machines despite payment of a deposit of R21,840. The respondent's explanation of looting was unsupported by evidence. The applicants sought confirmation of the termination of the agreement, a declaration of prohibited conduct under the Consumer Protection Act, a refund of the deposit, interest at the prescribed rate, and further relief. They contended that the respondent's failure to deliver and lack of cooperation justified enforcement of the settlement agreement.
- Respondent
- The respondent claimed that the company was looted in July 2021, which prevented delivery of the machines. The respondent attempted to lodge a counter-claim for unpaid installation of burglar guards, but this was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent agreed in mediation to deliver the machines by 22 August 2022 but failed to do so. At the hearing, the respondent negotiated a settlement agreement, agreeing to deliver the machines or refund the deposit if delivery did not occur.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 150(d) of the National Credit Act, Act 34 of 2005
A settlement agreement confirmed by the Tribunal becomes enforceable as an order of the Tribunal.
- 02
Sections 19(2)(a)(i), 47(3), and 54 of the Consumer Protection Act No 68 of 2008
Prohibited conduct under the Consumer Protection Act includes failure to deliver goods as contracted and unjustified retention of consumer funds.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to deliver the contracted goods and did not provide credible evidence for the alleged looting incident. The respondent's conduct constituted a breach of contract and prohibited conduct under the Consumer Protection Act. The parties negotiated and signed a settlement agreement, which provided for delivery of the machines or, failing that, a refund of the deposit. The Tribunal was satisfied that the settlement agreement resolved the dispute and, in accordance with the parties' request and statutory provisions, made the agreement an order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed that the terms of the settlement agreement are enforceable and that the applicant may seek enforcement and interest if the respondent fails to comply.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal expressed concern about parties abusing Tribunal processes by requesting last-minute postponements without prior indication of intent to defend.
- The Tribunal emphasized that counter-claims unrelated to the transaction at hand fall outside its jurisdiction.
- The Tribunal noted that mediation and settlement are encouraged but must be honored by the parties.
Court disposition
Settlement agreement confirmed and made an order of the Tribunal; terms enforceable; no order as to costs.
- The settlement agreement dated 8 November 2022 is confirmed and made an order of the KwaZulu-Natal Consumer Tribunal.
- Should the respondent fail to deliver the machines, the full deposit of R21,840 becomes immediately due and payable to the applicant, with interest at the prescribed rate.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Consumer Affairs Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Consumer Affairs Court
Judgment
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
HELD
IN IXOPO
Case number: KZNCT12/2022
In the matter between:
KWAZULU-NATAL
CONSUMER TRIBUNAL FIRST
PLAINTIFF
NCEBA
DLAMINI SECOND
PLAINTIFF
And
KHABELIMSONGO CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD DEFENDANT
Coram:
Prof B Dumisa: Chairperson and Presiding Tribunal Member
Ms P Dabideen: Tribunal Member
Adv N Nursoo: Tribunal Member
Date of Hearing: 08 November 2022
Date of Judgment: 29 November 2022
JUDGEMENT
AND SETTLEMENT ORDER
Judgment and Settlement Order
KwaZulu Natal Consumer Protector and Nceba Diamini v Khabelimsongo Construction (Ply) Ltd
KZNCT12/2022
Author: Prof B.C. Dumisa
2.1 On the 3rd of March 2021 the Consumer bought two detergent mixer machines from the Defendant for R31200.00 (Thirty-One Thousand And Two Hundred
Rands).
2.2 The Consumer paid R21840 (Twenty-One Thousand Eight Hundred And Forty Rand) as the deposit.
2.3 Both machines were never delivered to the Consumer as the Defendant alleged that his company was looted in July 2021.
2.4 The .Defendant has to-date failed to produce proof of the looting incident.
2.5 The Second Plaintiff represented himself.
DEFENDANT
3. The Defendant is Mr ELLIOT TIBE, the owner of KHABELIMSONGO CONSTRUCTION (Pty) Ltd, a private company and service provider, with its principal place of business situated at 32 Margaret Street, lxopo, in the Province of KwaZulu Natal.
4. The Defendant was represented by an Attorney, Ashlin Naidoo from SEESA.
EARLIER
EFFORTS OF THE PARTIES TO AMICABLY RESOLVE THIS MATTER
5. The Defendant earlier showed signs of cooperating with both the First Plaintiff and the Second Plaintiff.
6. The Defendant earlier tried to lodge a counter-claim against the Consumer, claiming that the Defendant had installed burglar guards at the Consumer's home for R4900.00 and that the Consumer had not paid for that service. The Office of the First Plaintiff immediately informed the Defendant that they had no jurisdiction to deal with counter claim as it had no bearing on the transaction at hand.
7. On 21 July 2022 at a mediation meeting facilitated by the Office of the First Plaintiff, a settlement was signed by both parties whereby the Defendant agreed to deliver both the mixers by 22 August 2022, but the Defendant failed to honour his promise.
8. When the Defendant failed to honour his promise to deliver both mixers by the 22nd of August 2022, the First Plaintiff concluded that it was clear that the Defendant was not serious about his commitment to deliver the machines. It was on these grounds, the Consumer informed the Office of the First Plaintiff that he (the Second Plaintiff) is now demanding the full refund of the deposit he paid to the Defendant. Hence this Tribunal Hearing.
THE
HEARING
9. This matter was initially set down for a hearing on the 4th of October 2022, where the Defendant was personally not in attendance, but an Attorney, Ashlin Naidoo phoned the First Plaintiff
on behalf of the Defendant and requested a postponement of the matter, citing that he was only briefed by the Defendant at the last minute.
9.1 The Tribunal did express its very strong objections to and reservations about parties who apparently abuse the Tribunal processes by initially not indicating their intention to defend the matters, and only come at the very last minute to request postponements.
9.2 The matter was adjourned to the 8th of November 2022. The Tribunal made it clear that at this new date it would proceed with the matter whether the Defendant is in attendance or not.
10. On the 8th of November 2022, the parties asked to be allowed to negotiate a Settlement Agreement, which was successfully concluded and signed by
10.1 The First Plaintiff, represented by Mr Ryan Moodley;
10.2 The Second Plaintiff, Mr Nceba Dlamini representing himself; and
10.3 The Defendant Mr Elliot Tibe being represented by an Attorney, Ashlin Naidoo from SEESA.
11. See "Annexure A", the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT attached.
CONCLUSION
12. Consequently, the Tribunal is persuaded that it is appropriate to grant the request of the parties that the Settlement Agreement be made an Order of the KZN Consumer Tribunal.
ORDER
13. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order:
The Settlement Agreement, dated the 8th of November 2022, concluded between the First Plaintiff, Second Plaintiff, and The Defendant,
which is attached as "Annexure A", under case KZNCT12/2022, is confirmed and made an order of the KwaZulu-Natal Consumer Tribunal in terms of Section 150(d) of the National Credit Act, Act 34 of 2005.
14. The terms and conditions of this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT remain applicable and enforceable, as is, as stated on the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, regardless of the date of this JUDGMENT AND SETTLEMENT ORDER.
15. There is no order as to costs.
Thus, done and signed in Durban on this 29th Day of November 2022.
Prof. B. Dumisa
Chairperson and Presiding Tribunal Member
Ms. P. Dabideen (Tribunal Member) and Adv N. Nursoo (Tribunal Member) concurring.
ANNEXURE
A
IN
THE KWAZULU NATAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD AT IXOPO
CASE NUMBER: KZNCT12/2022
KWAZULU-NATAL CONSUMER PROTECTOR - FIRST
PLAINTIFF
MR
NCEBA DLAMINI - SECOND
PLAINTIFF
AND
KHABELIMSONGO CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD - DEFENDANT
SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS the consumer lodged a complaint with the Office of the Kwazulu Natal Consumer Protector in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and the Kwazulu Natal Consumer Protection Act 04 of 2013 claiming inter alia:-
i. Confirmation of the termination of the Agreement;
ii. The respondents conduct to be declared as a prohibited conduct in Contravention of S19 (2) (a) (i) and S47 (3) and S54 of the Consumer Protection Act No 68 of 2008;
iii. To refund to the Second Plaintiff the full amount of R21 840 (twenty one thousand eight hundred and forty rand) being the amounts paid for two mixer machines;
iv. Interest at the prescribed rate tempore morae.
v. Further and/or alternative relief.
AND WHEREAS the Office of the Consumer Protector Kwazulu Natal facilitated the handling of the complaint which was referred to the
Kwazulu Natal Consumer Tribunal.
AND WHEREAS subject to the confirmation of the Consumer Tribunal in terms of S10 of the Kwazulu Natal Consumer Protection Act 04 of 2013 the parties agreed to settle the complaint on the following terms:-
1. The Defendant will supply two new automated detergent machines to the second plaintiff on or before the 21st of November 2022.
2. Subsequent to the delivery of the detergent machines, the second plaintiff shall pay the full amount of R14 260.00 (fourteen thousand two hundred and sixty rand) in two instalments of R4900.00 (Four thousand and nine hundred rand) on or before the 28th of February 2023 and the balance amount of R9360.00 (Nine thousand three hundred and sixty rand) to be paid on or before the 30th of April 2023 owing to the defendant.
3. Should the defendant fail to deliver as set in point 1 above, the full amount of R21 840 (twenty one thousand eight hundred and forty rand) shall immediately become due, owing and payable to the second plaintiff, and
The parties agree that the second plaintiff shall approach any competent court to enforce this agreement which is made an order of the Consumer Tribunal and to further seek interest at the prescribed rate at the time of this agreement was made an order of the Kwazulu Natal Consumer Tribunal.
4. The parties further agree that the terms and conditions of this agreement will be made an order of the Kwazulu Natal Consumer Tribunal.
Dated at lxopo on this 08 day of November 2022.
First Plaintiff
Represented by Ryan Moodley
Second Plaintiff Defendant
Mr N Dlamini Mr
Tibe
Legally Represented by Ashlin
Naidoo from SEESA
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.