Makhetha v Lenny Karam Motors CC (NCT/301206/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 18 (11 July 2024)

Makhetha v Lenny Karam Motors CC (NCT/301206/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 18 (11 July 2024)

The Tribunal found that the defects identified in the vehicle, including worn shock absorbers, control arm bushes, and leaking rubber casings, constituted actionable defects under section 53 of the CPA. The one-month or 1 000 km warranty did not expressly exclude the statutory warranty and was not in contravention of section 51. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that wear-and-tear items are excluded from the CPA, holding that the consumer is entitled to goods of good quality and durability for a reasonable period. The defects arose well within the six-month statutory period, and the evidence established that the vehicle was not of the quality required by section 55. The...

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 18
Parties
Applicant: William Motsoko Makhetha; Respondent: Lenny Karam Motors CC
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 July 2024
Case Number
NCT/301206/2023/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application granted in part; respondent ordered to repair the vehicle as identified by its expert and return it to the applicant at its cost.
Judges
P Manzi-Ntshingila, S Hockey, S Mbhele
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty, Defective Goods, Supplier Liability
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty Defective Goods Supplier Liability

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Motsoko Makhetha

Applicant

Lenny Karam Motors CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent contravened section 56(2) read with section 55 of the Consumer Protection Act by selling a vehicle with defects within six months of delivery.
  2. 2 Whether the one-month or 1 000 km warranty unlawfully purported to waive statutory rights under the CPA.
  3. 3 Whether the defects identified constitute wear-and-tear items excluded from the CPA or actionable defects under section 53.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the defects identified in the vehicle, including worn shock absorbers, control arm bushes, and leaking rubber casings, constituted actionable defects under section 53 of the CPA. The one-month or 1 000 km warranty did not expressly exclude the statutory warranty and was not in contravention of section 51. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that wear-and-tear items are excluded from the CPA, holding that the consumer is entitled to goods of good quality and durability for a reasonable period. The defects arose well within the six-month statutory period, and the evidence established that the vehicle was not of the quality required by section 55. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; respondent ordered to repair the vehicle as identified by its expert and return it to the applicant at its cost.

Orders

  • The respondent shall effect all repairs identified by Mr Wheeler as set out in his report within 20 business days from the date of this order, and thereafter return the vehicle to the applicant at the respondent's cost.
  • There is no order as to costs.