Stemmet v Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd t/a Milnerton Multi Franchise (NCT/83884/2017/75(1)) [2018] ZANCT 150 (18 July 2018)

Stemmet v Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd t/a Milnerton Multi Franchise (NCT/83884/2017/75(1)) [2018] ZANCT 150 (18 July 2018)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent failed to provide quality service as required by section 54(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Respondent did not assess or repair the Applicant's vehicle after a breakdown following a routine service, failed to provide a technical report, and returned the vehicle in a disassembled state. The Respondent did not cooperate with the Applicant or the Motor Industry Ombudsman, and relied on inconclusive parts of an independent assessor's report. The Tribunal held that this conduct constituted prohibited conduct under the Act. However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award damages for loss of income or instalments paid; such claims must be...

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 150
Parties
Applicant: Waleed Stemmet; Respondent: Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd t/a Milnerton Multi Franchise
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Case Number
NCT/83884/2017/75(1)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application partially granted. Respondent found to have committed prohibited conduct and fined. Claims for damages and compensation refused.
Judges
MC Peenze, N Maseti, D Terblanche
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Quality of Service, Prohibited Conduct, Administrative Fine
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Quality of Service Prohibited Conduct Administrative Fine

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

Parties

Waleed Stemmet

Applicant

Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd t/a Milnerton Multi Franchise

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent failed to provide quality service as required by section 54(1) of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's conduct constitutes prohibited conduct under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages or compensation for loss of income and instalments paid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent failed to provide quality service as required by section 54(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Respondent did not assess or repair the Applicant's vehicle after a breakdown following a routine service, failed to provide a technical report, and returned the vehicle in a disassembled state. The Respondent did not cooperate with the Applicant or the Motor Industry Ombudsman, and relied on inconclusive parts of an independent assessor's report. The Tribunal held that this conduct constituted prohibited conduct under the Act. However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award damages for loss of income or instalments paid; such claims must be...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted. Respondent found to have committed prohibited conduct and fined. Claims for damages and compensation refused.

Orders

  • The Respondent failed to comply with section 54 of the Consumer Protection Act, constituting prohibited conduct.
  • An administrative fine of R250,000 is imposed against the Respondent for the contravention.