Nqunqa v Eerste Geluk Motors CC (NCT/131419/2019/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 2 (25 January 2022)

Nqunqa v Eerste Geluk Motors CC (NCT/131419/2019/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 2 (25 January 2022)

The Tribunal found that the applicant proved the existence of certain defects in the vehicle on a balance of probabilities. However, these defects were not of such a nature as to render the vehicle less useful, practicable, or safe within the meaning of section 53(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. The applicant drove the vehicle for over 1,000 kilometres after becoming aware of the defects, which undermined the claim that the defects were material. The Tribunal held that discomfort and lack of aesthetics do not amount to material defects warranting cancellation. The applicant was not entitled to cancel the sale or receive a refund under section 56(2) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed...

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 2
Parties
Applicant: Mawethu Elester Nqunqa; Respondent: Eerste Geluk Motors CC
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 January 2022
Case Number
NCT/131419/2019/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Oral Hearing and Written Submissions
Outcome
Application dismissed. The applicant is not entitled to cancellation or refund under the Consumer Protection Act.
Judges
D Terblanche, B Dumisa, F Sibanda
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Defective Goods, Right of Cancellation, Burden of Proof, Remedies for Defects
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Defective Goods Right of Cancellation Burden of Proof Remedies for Defects

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mawethu Elester Nqunqa

Applicant

Eerste Geluk Motors CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Oral Hearing and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defects in the vehicle constituted defects as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, entitling the applicant to cancel the sale.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant cancelled the sale in terms of section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund and return of the trade-in vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant proved the existence of certain defects in the vehicle on a balance of probabilities. However, these defects were not of such a nature as to render the vehicle less useful, practicable, or safe within the meaning of section 53(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. The applicant drove the vehicle for over 1,000 kilometres after becoming aware of the defects, which undermined the claim that the defects were material. The Tribunal held that discomfort and lack of aesthetics do not amount to material defects warranting cancellation. The applicant was not entitled to cancel the sale or receive a refund under section 56(2) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The applicant is not entitled to cancellation or refund under the Consumer Protection Act.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed.
  • The respondent must return, and the applicant must collect, the Toyota Hilux vehicle within 15 days of the order date.