Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Consumer Affairs Court

Phete v Scheepers t/a Boshoek Boorwerke (NW29/2024) [2024] ZACONAF 6 (4 September 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The defendant failed to supply goods of good quality and free from defects, breaching Section 55 read with Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act. The defendant was properly cited and admitted liability, confirming he traded as Boshoek Boorwerke and was the account holder. The settlement agreement reached between the parties, providing for cancellation of the contract and refund to the plaintiff, accords with the Consumer Protection Act and common law. The court therefore made the settlement agreement an order of court, including specific payment terms and removal of defective casings.

Court disposition

Settlement agreement made an order of court; defendant ordered to refund plaintiff and remove defective casings.

Orders

  • The settlement agreement is admitted and marked Exhibit 'A'.
  • The defendant is ordered to refund the plaintiff R29,524.00 in three instalments: R10,000.00 on or before 04/09/2024; R10,000.00 on or before 20/09/2024; and R9,524.00 on or before 04/10/2024.
  • The defendant is ordered to remove and collect the casings at his cost from the plaintiff's premises on or before 06/09/2024.
  • No order as to costs, except for costs of enforcement should the defendant fail to pay on the stipulated dates.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Ola Hendrick Phete

Plaintiff Counsel: Mr SE Letsogo

Morne Scheepers t/a Boshoek Boorwerke

Defendant Counsel: Morne Scheepers

Amounts and remedies

  • Refund Amount Ordered: ZAR 29,524
  • First Instalment: ZAR 10,000
  • Second Instalment: ZAR 10,000
  • Third Instalment: ZAR 9,524

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Procedure / Settlement After Pleadings and Special Pleas; Order Granted

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to deliver a borehole free from defects, as the steel casing pipes installed were pulled out by the drill. The plaintiff demanded cancellation of the agreement and a refund after the defendant failed to remedy the defects, and referred the complaint to the Consumer Affairs office.
Respondent
The defendant raised several special pleas: he was wrongly cited as the defendant, as he was merely an employee of Boshoek Boorwerke (Pty) Ltd; the claim was premature as the plaintiff denied access for inspection and rectification; non-joinder of Boshoek Boorwerke (Pty) Ltd as an interested party; and no cause of action as the plaintiff failed to set out the contract terms. Ultimately, the defendant admitted liability and agreed to refund the plaintiff.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 55 read with Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008

    A supplier must provide goods that are of good quality, free from defects, and suitable for their intended purpose.

  2. 02

    Common law principles on contracts

    A party who is properly cited and admits liability may be ordered to refund monies paid under a defective contract.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The defendant failed to supply goods of good quality and free from defects, breaching Section 55 read with Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act. The defendant was properly cited and admitted liability, confirming he traded as Boshoek Boorwerke and was the account holder. The settlement agreement reached between the parties, providing for cancellation of the contract and refund to the plaintiff, accords with the Consumer Protection Act and common law. The court therefore made the settlement agreement an order of court, including specific payment terms and removal of defective casings.

Obiter and limits

  • The court notes that the defendant was properly cited and joined, as he confirmed his trading status and directorship.
  • The court does not pronounce on the special pleas as the matter was resolved by settlement.

Court disposition

Settlement agreement made an order of court; defendant ordered to refund plaintiff and remove defective casings.

  • The settlement agreement is admitted and marked Exhibit 'A'.
  • The defendant is ordered to refund the plaintiff R29,524.00 in three instalments: R10,000.00 on or before 04/09/2024; R10,000.00 on or before 20/09/2024; and R9,524.00 on or before 04/10/2024.
  • The defendant is ordered to remove and collect the casings at his cost from the plaintiff's premises on or before 06/09/2024.
  • No order as to costs, except for costs of enforcement should the defendant fail to pay on the stipulated dates.

Source and reliance status

Consumer Affairs Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Consumer Affairs Court

Judgment

[2024] ZACONAF 6

PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS COURT

FOR

THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE

CASE NO: NW29/2024

In the matter between: -

MR

OLA HENDRICK PHETE

PLAINTIFF And

MORNE SCHEEPERS//BOSHOEK BOORWERKE

DEFENDANT

JUDGEMENT

DELIVERED ON: 04/09/2024

CORAM: KJP KGOMONGWE (TJ Rakoloka and L Kortjas Concurring)

For Plaintiff - Consumer Protector - Mr SE. Letsogo

For Defendant - Morne Schepers

SUMMARY:

Allegations of failure to deliver goods that are free from defects.

RESULTS:

Settlement reached by the parties on the matter cancellation of the agreement and plaintiff to be refunded.

THE

PARTIES

[1] The Plaintiff is Mr Ola Hendrick Phete an adult male residing at Geelhout Park Rusternburg.

[2] The defendant is Morne Scheepers t/a Boshoek Boorwerke at farm Codrus Boshoek Rusternburg.

[3]

BACKGROUD

Plaintiff engaged the services of the defendant for drilling a borehole and paid an amount of R24 200.00 to the defendant on 08/08/2023 per EFT payment. After the drilling was completed the steel casing pipes that were installed were pulled out of the borehole by the drill. The defects and complaints about the defective borehole was bought to their attention of the defendant to remedy the defects which plea the defendant undertook to honour and remedy the defects.

The plaintiff referred the complaint to the Consumer Affairs office after the defendant failed and refuse to remedy the defective borehole further demanded cancellation of the agreement and demanded payment of monies he paid to the defendant. Defendant failed to remedy the defects on the borehole.

The defendant filed notice to defend the action and filed three special pleas and pleaded to the plaintiff's particulars of claim.

[4] Defendant's 1st Special Plea

On the special plea it was pleaded that the cited defendant Marne Scheepers denied that he is the correct defendant in this matter and he is wrongly cited as the defendant as he is not apart to the agreement between the parties as the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Boshoek Boorwerke(pty)Ltd that Morne Scheepers is merely an employee of Boshoek Boorwerke(pty)Ltd.

[5] 2nd

SPECIAL

PLEAS

The defendant raised a second special plea to the effect that after receipt of the complaint defendant tendered to visit to inspect the defective borehole, however the plaintiff denied them access to the premises thus the plaintiff's claim was prematurely before the Consumer Affairs Courts as he had not been afforded an opportunity to rectify the defects.

[6] 3rd

SPECIAL PLEAS

Relates to non-joinder of the interested party Boshoesk Boorwerker(pty)Ltd to the proceedings as they are an entity with own legal capacity.

[7] 4TH

SPECIAL

PLEA

Relates to a claim for no cause of action as the plaintiff failed to set out the terms and conditions of the contract concluded between the parties proceeding before court.

[8] The matter presented itself before court and was postponed for parties to file and make their submissions and arguments on the special plea.

[9] On the return date both parties appeared and informed the court that the there are possible settlement negotiations and proposals and sought indulgence from the court to allow the negotiations and possible settlement on the matter. The matter was then accordingly postponed to 19th August 2024 to allow possible settlement negotiations.

[10] On 19/08/2024 the matter appeared before court and the Consumer Protector including the plaintiff were present and the defendant's legal representative was also present, the defendant was absent and legal representative applied for postponed to obtain instructions from the absent client to proceed with the negotiations and/or special plea submissions. The matter was postponed to 4/09/2024 for hearing.

[11]

THE

HEARING

On 04/09/2024 the parties appeared before court and the defendant was present and the legal representative absent, A notice of withdrawal

as attorneys of record was served and filed.

[12] The consumer protector Mr Letsogo presented a settlement proposal which the defendant confirmed and both parties applied that it be made an order of court.

EVALUATION

OF PAPERS FILED AND MERITS

[13] As the parties did not proceed to file and urgue the special pleas raised and the matter was finalized on the basis of the settlement agreement which was made on order of the court as prayed for the parties the court will not pronounce on the special pleas raised by the plaintiff.

[14] The court wish however in this judgment reflect on an aspect raised by the plaintiff in a special plea to the effect that the plaintiff was wrongly cited on the particulars of claim as he was merely an employee to the defendant and not party to the contract concluded.

[15] According to the papers filed payment was made to the account which the defendant furnished to the plaintiff and coincidentally the account holder is the defendant.

[16] On the appearance of 04/09/2024 the defendant Morne Scheepers appeared in court and confirmed that he is indeed the defendant trading as Boshoek Boorwerke and admitted liability and undertook to refund the plaintiff. It is also noted that Mr Marne Schepers confirmed that he is the director of Boshoek Boorwerke.

Having regards to the above the court is satisfied that the defendant was properly cited and joined to the proceedings.

[17] The court further finds that the Defendant was in breach of the provision of Section 55 read with 56 of the consumer protection Act 68 of 2008 in that he failed to supply to the Plaintiff goods of a good quality and free from defects suitable for purposes for which they were intended.

Accordingly the court is satisfied that the settlement presented accords with prescripts of the Consumer Protection Act and the common law principles on contracts.

ORDER

1. The settlement agreement is admitted and marked Exhibit "A".

2. The Defendant is ordered to refund to the Plaintiff the amount of R29 524.00 payable in the following terms:

2.1. An amount of R10000.00 is payable on or before 04/09/2024

2.2. An amount of R10000.00 is payable on or before 20/09/2024

2.3. The balance of R9 524.00 is payable on or before 04/10/2024

3. The Defendant is ordered to remove and collect the casings at his cost from the Plaintiff premises on or before 06/09/2024.

4. No order to costs is made safe for the costs of enforcement of this order by the Plaintiff should the Defendant fail to make payment on stipulated date.

DATED AT RUSTENBURG ON THIS THE 04th OF SEPTEMBER 2024.

KJP

KGOMONGWE

CHAIRPERSON

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.