Mkwalo v Mystical Summer Trading 57 CC t/a Ultimate Auto (NCT/122479/2018/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 108 (17 July 2019)

Mkwalo v Mystical Summer Trading 57 CC t/a Ultimate Auto (NCT/122479/2018/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 108 (17 July 2019)

The Tribunal found that the respondent supplied a defective vehicle to the applicant, which broke down within three months of purchase and required substantial repairs. The respondent failed to comply with its obligations under sections 55 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act by refusing to refund the purchase...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 108
Parties
Applicant: Lumkile Mkwalo; Respondent: Mystical Summer Trading 57 CC t/a Ultimate Auto
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Case Number
NCT/122479/2018/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Main Merits Hearing
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to refund the purchase price and pay an administrative fine.
Judges
J Simpson, D Terblanche, M Nkomo
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty of Quality, Defective Goods, Administrative Fine, Default Judgment
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty of Quality Defective Goods Administrative Fine Default Judgment

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lumkile Mkwalo

Applicant

Mystical Summer Trading 57 CC t/a Ultimate Auto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Main Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent supplied a defective vehicle in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of the purchase price under section 56 of the CPA.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent may demand payment for repairs or storage costs before releasing the vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondent supplied a defective vehicle to the applicant, which broke down within three months of purchase and required substantial repairs. The respondent failed to comply with its obligations under sections 55 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act by refusing to refund the purchase price or return the vehicle without demanding payment for repairs and storage. The respondent did not participate in the proceedings, and all allegations were deemed admitted. The Tribunal held that the applicant is entitled to a refund of the purchase price, to be paid into his credit agreement account with the finance provider. The Tribunal further found that the respondent...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to refund the purchase price and pay an administrative fine.

Orders

  • The respondent is to pay R111,995.21 into Mr. Mkwalo's vehicle credit agreement account with MFC within 30 days of this judgment.
  • The respondent is to pay an administrative fine of R50,000.00 into the National Revenue Fund within 30 days of this judgment.