Ramangwa v Pro-Quick (Pty) Ltd and Another (NCT/254908/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 24 (28 July 2023)

Ramangwa v Pro-Quick (Pty) Ltd and Another (NCT/254908/2023/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 24 (28 July 2023)

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's uncontested version that the vehicle purchased from the first respondent had been involved in a major collision prior to sale and that this material fact was not disclosed. The first respondent's failure to disclose the accident damage and to correct the applicant's misapprehension about the vehicle's condition constituted contraventions of sections 25(1), 41(1)(a), and 41(3)(b)(ii)-(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Tribunal found that these duties are imposed on suppliers, not credit providers, and therefore no order could be made against the second respondent. The applicant suffered significant financial prejudice due to the reduction in the...

Citation
[2023] ZANCT 24
Parties
Applicant: Lucas Nare Ramangwa; Respondent: Pro-Quick (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: WesBank Limited
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Case Number
NCT/254908/2023/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Default Application / Judgment After Unopposed Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant; first respondent's conduct declared prohibited under the CPA; applicant entitled to approach the Chairperson for a damages certificate; no order against the second respondent; no cost order.
Judges
C Sassman, S Hockey, C Ntsoane
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Misrepresentation, Prohibited Conduct, Damages Certificate
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Misrepresentation Prohibited Conduct Damages Certificate

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucas Nare Ramangwa

Applicant

Pro-Quick (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

WesBank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Application / Judgment After Unopposed Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the first respondent contravene the Consumer Protection Act by selling a vehicle with undisclosed accident damage to the applicant.
  2. 2 Is the conduct of the first respondent prohibited under the CPA.
  3. 3 Is the second respondent liable for any contravention as a credit provider.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's uncontested version that the vehicle purchased from the first respondent had been involved in a major collision prior to sale and that this material fact was not disclosed. The first respondent's failure to disclose the accident damage and to correct the applicant's misapprehension about the vehicle's condition constituted contraventions of sections 25(1), 41(1)(a), and 41(3)(b)(ii)-(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Tribunal found that these duties are imposed on suppliers, not credit providers, and therefore no order could be made against the second respondent. The applicant suffered significant financial prejudice due to the reduction in the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant; first respondent's conduct declared prohibited under the CPA; applicant entitled to approach the Chairperson for a damages certificate; no order against the second respondent; no cost order.

Orders

  • The first respondent has contravened sections 25(1), 41(1)(a), 41(3)(b)(ii) and 41(3)(b)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  • The first respondent's contravention is declared prohibited conduct.