Shabangu v RSM Auto CC t/a Autotique Pre-Owned and Another (NCT/203718/2021/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 10 (31 January 2022)

Shabangu v RSM Auto CC t/a Autotique Pre-Owned and Another (NCT/203718/2021/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 10 (31 January 2022)

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim had lapsed under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the application was filed more than three years after the alleged act (the sale of the defective vehicle in May 2018). The Tribunal held that it has no power to interrupt prescription and cannot apply...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZANCT 10
Parties
Applicant: Skhona Shabangu; Respondent: RSM Auto CC t/a Autotique Pre-Owned; Respondent: MFC, a division of Nedbank Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2022
Case Number
NCT/203718/2021/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act
Outcome
Application for leave to refer refused.
Judges
J Simpson
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Leave to Refer, Prescription, Burden of Proof
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Leave to Refer Prescription Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skhona Shabangu

Applicant

RSM Auto CC t/a Autotique Pre-Owned

Respondent

MFC, a division of Nedbank Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim has lapsed under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to support a claim under the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant leave to refer the complaint given the lapse of the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim had lapsed under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the application was filed more than three years after the alleged act (the sale of the defective vehicle in May 2018). The Tribunal held that it has no power to interrupt prescription and cannot apply principles from the Prescription Act to the CPA. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim, including expert evidence regarding the defects and documentation of the sale. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a finding in the applicant's favour and refused leave to refer.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer refused.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for leave to refer is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.