Masilo and Another v Mystic Cars (Pty) Ltd (NCT/229019/2021/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 25 (3 July 2023)

Masilo and Another v Mystic Cars (Pty) Ltd (NCT/229019/2021/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 25 (3 July 2023)

The Tribunal found that the vehicle purchased by the applicants broke down within four months of delivery due to a defective flywheel and clutch, as confirmed by the diagnostic report. The respondent failed to comply with the Motor Industry Ombudsman’s recommendation and did not provide evidence that the breakdown was solely due to wear and tear. The Tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to the implied warranty of quality under section 56 of the CPA, which allows for a refund if goods are defective within six months of delivery. The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s points in limine regarding locus standi and non-joinder of ABSA, finding that both applicants had standing and...

Citation
[2023] ZANCT 25
Parties
Applicant: Mpho William Masilo; Applicant: Lorainne Alexia Masilo; Respondent: Mystic Cars (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 July 2023
Case Number
NCT/229019/2021/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; refund of purchase price ordered, other relief declined.
Judges
CJ Ntsoane, C Sassman, M Peenze
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty of Quality, Defective Goods, Refund of Purchase Price
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty of Quality Defective Goods Refund of Purchase Price

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho William Masilo

Applicant

Lorainne Alexia Masilo

Applicant

Mystic Cars (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent contravened the Consumer Protection Act by supplying a defective vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a refund of the purchase price under section 56 of the CPA.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the additional relief sought by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the vehicle purchased by the applicants broke down within four months of delivery due to a defective flywheel and clutch, as confirmed by the diagnostic report. The respondent failed to comply with the Motor Industry Ombudsman’s recommendation and did not provide evidence that the breakdown was solely due to wear and tear. The Tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to the implied warranty of quality under section 56 of the CPA, which allows for a refund if goods are defective within six months of delivery. The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s points in limine regarding locus standi and non-joinder of ABSA, finding that both applicants had standing and...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; refund of purchase price ordered, other relief declined.

Orders

  • The respondent's conduct is declared prohibited under section 52(2) read with section 56(2)(a) of the CPA.
  • The respondent must pay R225,900.00 plus interest at 10.25% from 16 July 2020 until final payment into the applicants' elected bank account within 30 days of this judgment.