Ndlovu v Toyota Randburg (NCT/139033/2019/75(1)) [2022] ZANCT 22 (31 March 2022)

Ndlovu v Toyota Randburg (NCT/139033/2019/75(1)) [2022] ZANCT 22 (31 March 2022)

The Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent supplied a defective vehicle to the Applicant, contravening sections 55(2) and 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. The evidence showed that the vehicle exhibited multiple defects immediately after purchase, including faulty brakes and other issues, and broke down within three days and 400 km of use. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant’s testimony that he did not drive through water and rejected the Respondent’s water damage claim due to unreliable witness evidence and lack of supporting documentation. The cumulative defects rendered the vehicle unsafe, not durable, and not fit for its intended purpose. The Tribunal...

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 22
Parties
Applicant: Papani Cassius Ndlovu; Respondent: Toyota Randburg (a Division of Motus Group Limited)
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2022
Case Number
NCT/139033/2019/75(1)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Merits Hearing After Leave to Refer Granted
Outcome
The Tribunal found the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by supplying a defective vehicle and ordered a refund of the purchase price to the Applicant.
Judges
MC Peenze, FK Manamela, F Sibanda
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty, Defective Goods, Prohibited Conduct, Refund Claim, Used Vehicle Sale
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty Defective Goods Prohibited Conduct Refund Claim Used Vehicle Sale

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Papani Cassius Ndlovu

Applicant

Toyota Randburg (a Division of Motus Group Limited)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Merits Hearing After Leave to Refer Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by selling a defective vehicle to the Applicant, in contravention of section 56 read with section 55 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to a refund of the purchase price under section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the cumulative defects rendered the vehicle unsafe and not in good working order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent supplied a defective vehicle to the Applicant, contravening sections 55(2) and 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. The evidence showed that the vehicle exhibited multiple defects immediately after purchase, including faulty brakes and other issues, and broke down within three days and 400 km of use. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant’s testimony that he did not drive through water and rejected the Respondent’s water damage claim due to unreliable witness evidence and lack of supporting documentation. The cumulative defects rendered the vehicle unsafe, not durable, and not fit for its intended purpose. The Tribunal...

Court Disposition

The Tribunal found the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by supplying a defective vehicle and ordered a refund of the purchase price to the Applicant.

Orders

  • The Respondent’s contraventions of section 55(2) and 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act are declared prohibited conduct under the Act.
  • The Respondent is ordered to refund the Applicant the sum of R262,172.78, representing the purchase cost of the vehicle, within 14 days of the issuing of this order.