Netshivhuyu v KIA Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd trading as KIA Hatfield (NCT/96644/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 46 (9 April 2019)

Netshivhuyu v KIA Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd trading as KIA Hatfield (NCT/96644/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 46 (9 April 2019)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's complaint regarding the defective turbocharger was resolved through the amended settlement agreement, which confirmed that the turbocharger was repaired at the Respondent's cost and that the vehicle was operational to the Applicant's satisfaction. The Tribunal was satisfied that the settlement agreement addressed the cause of action and removed any offending clauses, such as those relating to defamation. As a result, the Tribunal confirmed the amended settlement agreement as an order, finding that the dispute between the parties had been resolved and that no further relief was required.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 46
Parties
Applicant: Mbavhalelo Jimmy Netshivhuyu; Respondent: KIA Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd trading as KIA Hatfield
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2019
Case Number
NCT/96644/2017/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Settlement Judgment After Referral From National Consumer Commission
Outcome
Settlement agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; no order as to costs.
Judges
N Maseti, M Nkomo, B Dumisa
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Defective Goods, Settlement Agreement, Consent Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Defective Goods Settlement Agreement Consent Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbavhalelo Jimmy Netshivhuyu

Applicant

KIA Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd trading as KIA Hatfield

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Settlement Judgment After Referral From National Consumer Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent was obliged to repair or replace the faulty turbocharger in the vehicle sold to the Applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement adequately resolved the Applicant's complaint regarding the defective vehicle.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should confirm the amended settlement agreement as an order of the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's complaint regarding the defective turbocharger was resolved through the amended settlement agreement, which confirmed that the turbocharger was repaired at the Respondent's cost and that the vehicle was operational to the Applicant's satisfaction. The Tribunal was satisfied that the settlement agreement addressed the cause of action and removed any offending clauses, such as those relating to defamation. As a result, the Tribunal confirmed the amended settlement agreement as an order, finding that the dispute between the parties had been resolved and that no further relief was required.

Court Disposition

Settlement agreement confirmed as an order of the Tribunal; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The amended settlement agreement entered into between the parties is made an order of the Tribunal.
  • No order is made for costs against any party.