Mthembu v Boundlesstrade 11 (Pty) Ltd t/a Jaguar Land Rover Waterford (NCT/245311/2022/75(1)(b) CPA) [2023] ZANCT 3 (18 January 2023)

Mthembu v Boundlesstrade 11 (Pty) Ltd t/a Jaguar Land Rover Waterford (NCT/245311/2022/75(1)(b) CPA) [2023] ZANCT 3 (18 January 2023)

The Tribunal found that the act which led to the complaint occurred in April 2017, and the application to the Tribunal was filed on 19 October 2022, more than three years after the cause of action. Section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act bars complaints from being referred to the Tribunal after three years from the act or omission. The continuous attempts by the Respondent to repair the vehicle do not interrupt or delay the prescription period. Therefore, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter, and the application for leave to refer is refused.

Citation
[2023] ZANCT 3
Parties
Applicant: Betrice Thokozile Mthembu; Respondent: Boundlesstrade 11 (Pty) Ltd t/a Jaguar Land Rover Waterford
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2023
Case Number
NCT/245311/2022/75(1)(b) CPA
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal
Outcome
Application for leave to refer is refused as the complaint is time-barred.
Judges
C Sassman
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Prescription, Defective Goods, Remedies for Consumers
Consumer Protection Consumer Protection Act Jurisdiction of Tribunal Prescription Defective Goods Remedies for Consumers

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Betrice Thokozile Mthembu

Applicant

Boundlesstrade 11 (Pty) Ltd t/a Jaguar Land Rover Waterford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint to Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaint given the time elapsed since the cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to refer the complaint to the Tribunal under section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the complaint is time-barred under section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the act which led to the complaint occurred in April 2017, and the application to the Tribunal was filed on 19 October 2022, more than three years after the cause of action. Section 116(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act bars complaints from being referred to the Tribunal after three years from the act or omission. The continuous attempts by the Respondent to repair the vehicle do not interrupt or delay the prescription period. Therefore, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter, and the application for leave to refer is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer is refused as the complaint is time-barred.

Orders

  • The application for leave to refer is refused.
  • No costs order is made.