National Consumer Commission v Ferhaad N.O. and Others (NCT/322185/2024/73(2)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 20 (18 July 2024)
The Tribunal found that the respondents contravened sections 48(1)(a)(ii) and 48(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act by including exclusionary clauses in the sale agreement that required the consumer to waive statutory rights and absolved the supplier from liability. These terms were unfair, unreasonable, and unjust, defeating the purposes of the Act. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant proved the vehicle was defective at the date of purchase as required by section 55(2)(b). The evidence indicated the consumer contributed to the engine failure by not heeding warning lights and failing to maintain the cooling system. The Tribunal...
- Citation
- [2024] ZANCT 20
- Parties
- Applicant: National Consumer Commission; Respondent: Omar Ismail Ferhaad N.O.; Respondent: Ebrahim Jalalpor Havabibi N.O.; Respondent: Omar Ismail Irshad N.O.; Respondent: Farhad Omar Ismail Trading Trust t/a Squad Cars
- Court
- National Consumer Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 18 July 2024
- Case Number
- NCT/322185/2024/73(2)(b)
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- The Tribunal declared that the respondents contravened sections 48(1)(a)(ii) and 48(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, constituting prohibited conduct, and imposed an administrative fine of R100,000.00, jointly and severally.
- Judges
- M Peenze, C Sassman, A Potwana
- Legal Topics
- Consumer Protection Act, Unfair Contract Terms, Administrative Fine, Trustee Liability, Implied Warranty, Prohibited Conduct
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
National Consumer Commission
Applicant
Omar Ismail Ferhaad N.O.
Respondent
Ebrahim Jalalpor Havabibi N.O.
Respondent
Omar Ismail Irshad N.O.
Respondent
Farhad Omar Ismail Trading Trust t/a Squad Cars
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents contravened sections 48(1)(a)(ii) and 48(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act by including unfair, unreasonable, or unjust terms in the sale agreement.
- 2 Whether the respondents contravened section 55(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by supplying goods not of good quality, in good working order, and free of defects.
- 3 Whether the Tribunal should impose an administrative fine for prohibited conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the respondents contravened sections 48(1)(a)(ii) and 48(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act by including exclusionary clauses in the sale agreement that required the consumer to waive statutory rights and absolved the supplier from liability. These terms were unfair, unreasonable, and unjust, defeating the purposes of the Act. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant proved the vehicle was defective at the date of purchase as required by section 55(2)(b). The evidence indicated the consumer contributed to the engine failure by not heeding warning lights and failing to maintain the cooling system. The Tribunal...
Court Disposition
The Tribunal declared that the respondents contravened sections 48(1)(a)(ii) and 48(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, constituting prohibited conduct, and imposed an administrative fine of R100,000.00, jointly and severally.
Orders
- The respondents have contravened sections 48(1)(a)(ii) and 48(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.
- The respondents' contraventions are declared prohibited conduct.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment