Le Roux v Scarlet Ibis Investments 46 (Pty) Ltd trading as Mahindra Nelspruit (NCT/264593/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 13 (11 July 2024)

Le Roux v Scarlet Ibis Investments 46 (Pty) Ltd trading as Mahindra Nelspruit (NCT/264593/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 13 (11 July 2024)

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to service the vehicle at the prescribed intervals, as evidenced by her signed declaration and the respondent's submissions. The breakdown occurred after the applicant drove 13,352 km without servicing the vehicle at 170,000 km and 180,000 km, contrary to the agreed maintenance schedule. The Tribunal held that the respondent's version was credible and not implausible, and that the applicant's failure to comply with the service requirements was the probable cause of the breakdown. Consequently, the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent sold her a defective vehicle, and she was not entitled to a repair or...

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 13
Parties
Applicant: Michelle Le Roux; Respondent: Scarlet Ibis Investments 46 (Pty) Ltd trading as Mahindra Nelspruit
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 July 2024
Case Number
NCT/264593/2023/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
N Maseti, A Potwana, P Manzi-Ntshingila
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Defective Goods, Service Intervals, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Defective Goods Service Intervals Burden of Proof

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Le Roux

Applicant

Scarlet Ibis Investments 46 (Pty) Ltd trading as Mahindra Nelspruit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent sold a defective motor vehicle to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's failure to service the vehicle at prescribed intervals caused the breakdown.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a repair or refund under section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to service the vehicle at the prescribed intervals, as evidenced by her signed declaration and the respondent's submissions. The breakdown occurred after the applicant drove 13,352 km without servicing the vehicle at 170,000 km and 180,000 km, contrary to the agreed maintenance schedule. The Tribunal held that the respondent's version was credible and not implausible, and that the applicant's failure to comply with the service requirements was the probable cause of the breakdown. Consequently, the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent sold her a defective vehicle, and she was not entitled to a repair or...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.