Magadla v Xavier Used Cars (GCC 09/2019) [2020] ZACONAF 5 (6 November 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZACONAF 5
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Consumer Affairs Court
- Panel
- M A du Plessis, M Phukubje, P Opperman
- Case number
- GCC 09/2019
More details
- Court
- Consumer Affairs Court
- Panel
- M A du Plessis, M Phukubje, P Opperman
- Case number
- GCC 09/2019
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The defendant failed to perform the agreed repairs within the stipulated time and did not return the plaintiff's vehicle in a usable condition, resulting in total loss. The defendant's conduct contravened section 54(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, and the evidence showed that remedying the defects was impossible. The appropriate compensation is the value of the vehicle, as a refund under section 54(2)(b) should reflect the extent of the supplier's failure, which in this case was complete. The defendant also engaged in prohibited and unfair business practices as defined by the relevant statutes.
Court disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay compensation and interest.
Orders
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R52 400.00.
- Interest on the amount at the prescribed rate from the date of this order until date of payment.
02
Material facts
Parties
Arthur Vuyisile Magadla
Plaintiff Counsel: Consumer ProtectorXavier Used Cars
Defendant Counsel: Themba MahlanguAmounts and remedies
- Vehicle Valuation: ZAR 52,400
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Action / Final Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant failed to exercise due care over the plaintiff's property in breach of the agreement.
- 02
Whether the defendant's conduct contravened section 54(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.
- 03
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation equivalent to the value of the vehicle.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to complete the agreed repairs on his vehicle within the stipulated time, failed to return the vehicle in at least as good a condition as received, and that the vehicle was rendered valueless due to missing parts and disassembly. The plaintiff sought compensation equal to the vehicle's value, relying on section 54 of the Consumer Protection Act and provided a valuation from BMW Joburg City.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not attend the proceedings and did not dispute the oral evidence regarding payment of the balance. No substantive defence or counter-argument was presented.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Consumer Protection Act, No 68 of 2008, section 54(1)
A supplier must perform services in a timely manner and with the quality that consumers are entitled to expect, and must return property in at least as good a condition as received.
- 02
Consumer Protection Act, No 68 of 2008, section 54(2)
If a supplier fails to meet the required standards, the consumer may require a remedy or a refund proportional to the extent of the failure.
- 03
Consumer Protection Act, No 68 of 2008; Consumer Protection (Unfair Business Protection) Act, No 7 of 1996
Engaging in prohibited conduct and unfair business practices is actionable under the Consumer Protection Act and the Consumer Protection (Unfair Business Protection) Act.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant failed to perform the agreed repairs within the stipulated time and did not return the plaintiff's vehicle in a usable condition, resulting in total loss. The defendant's conduct contravened section 54(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, and the evidence showed that remedying the defects was impossible. The appropriate compensation is the value of the vehicle, as a refund under section 54(2)(b) should reflect the extent of the supplier's failure, which in this case was complete. The defendant also engaged in prohibited and unfair business practices as defined by the relevant statutes.
Obiter and limits
- Suppliers must be aware that failure to comply with statutory obligations under the Consumer Protection Act can result in substantial financial liability.
- The absence of the defendant at the hearing did not prevent the court from making a determination based on the uncontested evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Court disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to pay compensation and interest.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R52 400.00.
- Interest on the amount at the prescribed rate from the date of this order until date of payment.
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
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN
THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS COURT FOR THE PROVINCE OF GAUTENG HELD AT
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: GCC 09/2019
In the matter between:
ARTHUR
VUYISILE MAGADLA
Plaintiff
and
XAVIER
USED CARS
Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. This is an action in terms of which the Plaintiff seeks compensation for loss resulting from the Respondent’s failure to exercise due care over property belonging to the Plaintiff, with interest thereon, as set out in the Particulars of Claim to the Summons.
2. At the hearing of this matter on 6 November 2019, the Plaintiff was represented by the Consumer Protector. The Defendant was represented by its sole proprietor, Mr Themba Mahlangu.
The facts
3. The common cause facts not in dispute are:
3.1 The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a partly written and partly oral agreement on 28 November 2018 whereby the Respondent undertook to fit an engine, with registration no 29905319, to the Plaintiffs motor vehicle with the following details:
2004 BMW 3 Series 330i Sport A/T (e46) f/l
VIN Number: [….]
Engine Number: [….]
Registration Number: HH77LFGP
3.2 The Plaintiff paid the following amounts to the Defendant:
3.2.1 Payments for which written proof was provided:
On 29 November 2018, an amount of R10 000,00 as a deposit on an invoice for an amount of R18 000,00 for a X5 3L engine, dated 28 November 2018.
On 12 February 2019, an amount of R9 500,00 for a BMW (e46) lockset and for the fitting thereof.
3.2.2 Oral evidence of payment of the R8 000,00 balance on the invoice dated 28 November 2018, by the Plaintiff, was not placed in dispute by the Defendant.
4. The parties agreed that the Respondent would commence with the specified work on the vehicle on 29 November 2018. They further agreed that the repairs must be completed by 25 December 2018.
5. The Plaintiff complied with his obligations in terms of the agreement.
6. The Defendant failed to perform by 25 December 2018, as agreed.
7. The Plaintiff approached the Gauteng Consumer Affairs office for assistance. After an inspection of the vehicle carried out at the Respondent’s principle place of business, an agreement was reached that the Respondent will complete the necessary repairs on or before 2 May 2019. The Respondent failed to honour this agreement.
8. Subsequent inspection revealed that the vehicle was disassembled and that parts of the vehicle were missing. It was further revealed that re-assembly of the vehicle will be either impossible, or that the cost thereof will be more than the value of the vehicle.
9. The Plaintiff requested payment of the value of the vehicle as compensation for the loss of the vehicle due to the Respondent’s failure.
10. The matter was postponed sine die in order for the Plaintiff to provide the members of the Gauteng Consumer Affairs Court with proof of the value of the vehicle.
The hearing of the matter resumed on 6 November 2020.
11. The Defendant, despite due service of a notice of set-down, failed to attend the proceedings.
12. The Plaintiff provided the Tribunal with a valuation of his vehicle to the amount of R52 400,00. The valuation was prepared by BMW Joburg City who was able to extract the details of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the BMW system.
13. Section 54 of the Consumer Protection Act, No 68 of 2008 (CPA) provides as follows: 54. Consumer’s rights to demand quality service
(1) When a supplier undertakes to perform any services for or on behalf of a consumer, the consumer has a right to—
(a) the timely performance and completion of those services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in the performance of the services;
(b) the performance of the services in a manner and quality that persons are generally entitled to expect;
(c) the use, delivery or installation of goods that are free of defects and of a quality that persons are generally entitled to expect, if any such goods are required for performance of the services; and
(d) the return of any property or control over any property of the consumer in at least as good a condition as it was when the consumer
made it available to the supplier for the purpose of performing such services, having regard to the circumstances of the supply, and any specific criteria or conditions agreed between the supplier and the consumer before or during the performance of the services.
(2) If a supplier fails to perform a service to the standards contemplated in subsection (1), the consumer may require the supplier to either—
(a) remedy any defect in the quality of the services performed or goods supplied; or
(b) refund to the consumer a reasonable portion of the price paid for the services performed and goods supplied, having regard to the extent of the failure.
14. In the circumstances, I hereby find that the Defendant’s conduct was in contravention of s54(1) of the CPA. It is further evident, from evidence presented during the trial, that the Defendant will not be able to remedy any defects as contemplated in s54(2)(a). In interpreting s54(2)(b) I find that the extent of the failure by the Defendant was complete and that a refund to the Plaintiff in these circumstances would amount to the value of the vehicle.
15. I further find that the Defendant engaged in prohibited conduct as defined in section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, No 68 of 2008. The Defendant furthermore engaged in an unfair business practice as defined in section 1 of the Consumer Protection (Unfair Business Protection) Act, No 7 of 1996.
16. In the circumstances, the following is ordered:
16.1 the Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff an amount of R52 400,00 (fifty two thousand four hundred Rands); and
16.2 interest on the amount in paragraph 16.1 above at the prescribed rate from the date of this order until date of payment.
ORDERED as such at JOHANNESBURG on 6 November 2020.
Prof. M A du Plessis
CHAIRPERSON
MEMBERS M Phukubje and P Opperman concurred
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.