National Consumer Commission v National Auto Brokers CC trading as Omars Auto City (NCT/172929/2020/73(3)) [2021] ZANCT 10 (25 June 2021)

National Consumer Commission v National Auto Brokers CC trading as Omars Auto City (NCT/172929/2020/73(3)) [2021] ZANCT 10 (25 June 2021)

The Tribunal found that the cause of the complaint arose on 19 December 2016, when the consumer took delivery of the defective vehicle. The applicant was required to refer the complaint to the Tribunal by 19 December 2019, but only did so on 19 November 2020, eleven months after the prescription period lapsed. The Tribunal held that section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act contains peremptory wording and does not grant discretion to entertain complaints after the three-year period. Previous Tribunal decisions suggesting interruption of prescription are overridden by binding High Court authority. The applicant's submissions regarding discretion and the time spent with the Ombud were...

Citation
[2021] ZANCT 10
Parties
Applicant: National Consumer Commission; Respondent: National Auto Brokers CC trading as Omars Auto City
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2021
Case Number
NCT/172929/2020/73(3)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Default Judgment; Application for Wide Ranging Order Including Administrative Fine and Refund
Outcome
Application dismissed due to prescription under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Judges
T Bailey, J Simpson, F Sibanda
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Prescription, Quality of Goods, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Prescription Quality of Goods Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Consumer Commission

Applicant

National Auto Brokers CC trading as Omars Auto City

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Default Judgment; Application for Wide Ranging Order Including Administrative Fine and Refund

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has the complaint prescribed under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act?
  2. 2 Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain the application after the three-year period?
  3. 3 Can the Tribunal exercise discretion to hear the matter despite prescription?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the cause of the complaint arose on 19 December 2016, when the consumer took delivery of the defective vehicle. The applicant was required to refer the complaint to the Tribunal by 19 December 2019, but only did so on 19 November 2020, eleven months after the prescription period lapsed. The Tribunal held that section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act contains peremptory wording and does not grant discretion to entertain complaints after the three-year period. Previous Tribunal decisions suggesting interruption of prescription are overridden by binding High Court authority. The applicant's submissions regarding discretion and the time spent with the Ombud were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed due to prescription under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no costs order.