Tshehla v Aucamp Eiendomsbeleggings t/a CA Motors (NCT/95341/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 160 (1 April 2019)

Tshehla v Aucamp Eiendomsbeleggings t/a CA Motors (NCT/95341/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 160 (1 April 2019)

The Tribunal found that the applicant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the vehicle was defective and not suitable for its intended purpose. The respondent failed to remedy the defects despite multiple opportunities and contravened the Consumer Protection Act by attempting to exclude the statutory warranty through an ultra vires contract term. The applicant's evidence regarding the condition of the vehicle and the expenses incurred for parts and towing was accepted, as the respondent did not dispute these facts. The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to a full refund of the purchase price and reimbursement for parts and towing, as the respondent engaged in prohibited...

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 160
Parties
Applicant: Matlake James Tshehla; Respondent: Aucamp Eiendomsbeleggings t/a CA Motors
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2019
Case Number
NCT/95341/2017/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Hearing and Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; respondent ordered to refund purchase price and expenses.
Judges
MC Peenze, D Terblanche, A Potwana
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty of Quality, Refund of Purchase Price, Prohibited Conduct, Ultra Vires Contract Terms
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty of Quality Refund of Purchase Price Prohibited Conduct Ultra Vires Contract Terms

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matlake James Tshehla

Applicant

Aucamp Eiendomsbeleggings t/a CA Motors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Hearing and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of the purchase price under the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of the amounts paid for parts and towing.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent contravened the Consumer Protection Act by excluding statutory warranties and failing to remedy defects.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the vehicle was defective and not suitable for its intended purpose. The respondent failed to remedy the defects despite multiple opportunities and contravened the Consumer Protection Act by attempting to exclude the statutory warranty through an ultra vires contract term. The applicant's evidence regarding the condition of the vehicle and the expenses incurred for parts and towing was accepted, as the respondent did not dispute these facts. The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to a full refund of the purchase price and reimbursement for parts and towing, as the respondent engaged in prohibited...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to refund purchase price and expenses.

Orders

  • The respondent shall repay the applicant the purchase price of R55,000 within 20 business days of the date of this order.
  • The respondent shall refund the applicant the amount of R5,218.80 within 20 business days of the date of this order.