Ngoza v Roque Quality Cars CC (NCT/79905/ 2017/73(3) &75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 70 (28 June 2018)

Ngoza v Roque Quality Cars CC (NCT/79905/ 2017/73(3) &75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 70 (28 June 2018)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to establish that the vehicle supplied by the Respondent was defective. The evidence, including oral testimony and affidavits, indicated that the vehicle's failure to start was due to water damage to the key, which was most likely caused while in the Applicant's possession. The Respondent's version was not contradicted or challenged under cross-examination, and the Applicant did not provide evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent could not be held responsible for the vehicle failing to start or for repairs, and the Applicant was not entitled to exercise rights under section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act. The...

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 70
Parties
Applicant: Koko Jacob Ngoza; Respondent: Roque Quality Cars CC
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Case Number
NCT/79905/2017/73(3) &75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Merits Hearing After Leave to Refer Granted
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
T Woker, P Beck, F Sibanda
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty of Quality, Defective Goods, Burden of Proof, Prescription, Cross Examination Rule
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty of Quality Defective Goods Burden of Proof Prescription Cross Examination Rule

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koko Jacob Ngoza

Applicant

Roque Quality Cars CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Merits Hearing After Leave to Refer Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent supplied a defective motor vehicle to the Applicant in contravention of section 55 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to exercise rights under section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act, including a refund of the purchase price.
  3. 3 Whether the damage to the vehicle key was caused by the Applicant and whether this voided the implied warranty of quality.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to establish that the vehicle supplied by the Respondent was defective. The evidence, including oral testimony and affidavits, indicated that the vehicle's failure to start was due to water damage to the key, which was most likely caused while in the Applicant's possession. The Respondent's version was not contradicted or challenged under cross-examination, and the Applicant did not provide evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent could not be held responsible for the vehicle failing to start or for repairs, and the Applicant was not entitled to exercise rights under section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.