Mkololo v Speedshop Bloemfontein (FSCAC2021/6-6) [2022] ZACONAF 19 (28 October 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZACONAF 19
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Consumer Affairs Court
- Panel
- N M Bahlekazi
- Case number
- FSCAC2021/6-6
More details
- Court
- Consumer Affairs Court
- Panel
- N M Bahlekazi
- Case number
- FSCAC2021/6-6
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient proof of payment of R50 000 to the defendant for vehicle repairs, as evidenced by bank statements. No proof was provided for the alleged payment of R27 000, and the affidavit submitted did not confirm or detail such payment. Accordingly, the court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of R50 000 only. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to refund R600 paid by the plaintiff to the Sheriff for service of summons, as this was a reasonable and documented expense incurred in the course of litigation.
Court disposition
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for R50 000 and R600; claim for R27 000 dismissed for lack of proof.
Orders
- The defendant must pay the plaintiff R50 000.
- The defendant must refund the plaintiff R600 paid to the Sheriff for service of summons.
02
Material facts
Parties
L Mkololo
PlaintiffSpeedshop Bloemfontein
Defendant Counsel: Mr NeethlingAmounts and remedies
- Refund for Vehicle Repairs: ZAR 50,000
- Refund for Sheriff Service Fee: ZAR 600
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Action / Final Judgment After Default and Affidavit Proceedings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff proved payment of R50 000 and R27 000 to the defendant for vehicle repairs.
- 02
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the amounts paid to the defendant.
- 03
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs paid to the Sheriff for service of summons.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that he paid R50 000 and R27 000 to the defendant for repair work on his vehicle and sought a refund of these amounts. He provided bank statements showing payment of R50 000 but was unable to produce proof of payment for the R27 000. He also claimed R600 paid to the Sheriff for service of summons.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not appear at the initial hearing and was absent when the matter was first decided. At a subsequent hearing, the director of Speedshop Bloemfontein was present but did not provide evidence disputing the plaintiff's claims. The defendant was informed that only proof of the R27 000 payment was outstanding, but no such proof was provided.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of South African civil procedure
A plaintiff must prove payment to succeed in a claim for refund.
- 02
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 31
Judgment by default may be granted where a defendant fails to appear after being duly summoned.
- 03
Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008
Costs reasonably incurred in service of process may be recoverable from the defendant.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient proof of payment of R50 000 to the defendant for vehicle repairs, as evidenced by bank statements. No proof was provided for the alleged payment of R27 000, and the affidavit submitted did not confirm or detail such payment. Accordingly, the court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of R50 000 only. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to refund R600 paid by the plaintiff to the Sheriff for service of summons, as this was a reasonable and documented expense incurred in the course of litigation.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the importance of providing documentary proof for all claimed payments in refund actions.
- The absence of the defendant at the initial hearing did not prejudice the plaintiff's right to proceed with the claim, provided proper service was effected.
Court disposition
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for R50 000 and R600; claim for R27 000 dismissed for lack of proof.
- The defendant must pay the plaintiff R50 000.
- The defendant must refund the plaintiff R600 paid to the Sheriff for service of summons.
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 CONSUMER COURT FOR THE FREE STATE
HELD
IN BLOEMFONTEIN
CASE NO: FSCAC2021/6-6
In the matter between:
L
MKOLOLO PLAINTIFF
And
SPEEDSHOP
BLOEMFONTEIN DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant for refund of the monies paid by the Plaintiff to defendant, Speedshop Bloemfontein for repair work on his vehicle. The Plaintiff alleged that he had paid amounts of R50 000 and R27 000 to the defendant.
The matter appeared in court on the 26th November 2021, when it was finally heard after a number of postponments, however the defendant did not appear. The consumer protector showed to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant had been summoned to come to court and he failed to do so. He further requested that judgement by default be granted against the defendant. The Plaintiff was present, the matter then proceeded. There were statements attached to the bundle of documents for the court. In the documents only the amount ofR50 000 could be seen on the bank statements.
The Plaintiff was then given an opportunity to go to the bank and get the proof of payment of the R27 000. The court adjourned for the proof to be provided. When the plaintiff returned, he brought back the bank statements that showed that an amount of R50 000 had been paid but still no proof of payment of R27 000 could be obtained.
One member of the panel suggested that the Plaintiff should do an affidavit explaining the amount of R27 000. The case was then
postponed for this affidavit. The matter convened on the 11/02/2022 and on this day Mr Neethling the director of Speedshop was present but however the Plaintiff was not present as the matter had been dealt with and the only matter remaining was the affidavit about the R27 000. Mr Neethling was advised that the matter was dealt with in his absence and that the only remaining part was the proof of the R27 000.
Mr Mkololo was also advised that Mr Neethling was present but because had excused him form appearing and that he should send the affidavit, he was not present. The affidavit was however not before court. The consumer court did not sit for a long time.
The matter was again enrolled on the roll of the 28th October 2022, when the consumer court resumed with its work. The affidavit was presented and read into the record. The affidavit however did not provide any proof of the R27000. The affidavit did not even state that the plaintiff paid the R27000 and when it was paid and how. The Judgement that was then confirmed as follows;
1. The defendant should pay/refund the defendant an amount of R50 000.
2. The Defendant should refund the plaintiff the amount of R600 (six hundred rand) being the amount the plaintiff paid to the Sheriff for service of the summons.
JUDGEMENT
BY THE CONSUMER COURT FREE STATE
N
M BAHLEKAZI
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.