The National Consumer Commission (NCC) welcomes the latest judgment handed down by the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division. The High Court dismissed with costs the appeal against Sandton Repo Cars (PTY) Ltd (Sandton Repo), a supplier based in Gauteng.

Sandton Repo appealed the National Consumer Tribunal’s (Tribunal) ruling, which was handed down in June 2024, in favour of the NCC. Sandton Repo contended that the consumer’s complaint had already prescribed when the NCC referred it to the Tribunal. Section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) provides that a complaint may not be referred to the Tribunal more than three years after the act or omission that is the cause of the complaint.

On 13 May 2020, the consumer paid R459 900 (Four Hundred and Fifty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Rand) towards the purchase of a 2018 Volkswagen Golf from Sandton Repo. The consumer was assured that the vehicle had never been involved in an accident. Five days later, the vehicle began to leak oil. On 5 October 2020, the consumer took the vehicle to Volkswagen in the Western Cape and was informed that it had been involved in an accident and was advised that it was unsafe to drive.

On 8 October 2020, the consumer informed Sandton Repo through her lawyers that she was exercising her rights to cancel the transaction for a full refund under section 56(2)(b) of the CPA. The supplier refused to collect the vehicle and demanded that it be delivered so that the supplier could inspect it to determine the cost of usage before agreeing to cancel the transaction. The NCC referred this matter to the Tribunal, which held that Sandton Repo had contravened sections 51(1)(b) and 56(2)(b) of the CPA.

The High Court held that Sandton Repo relied on a provision of the Prescription Act, which relates to the prescription of debt and not the conduct complained about.

The High Court ruled as follows:

“[23] Section 116 [of the CPA] does not contain the provisions relating to knowledge of cause and delay and interruption or the deeming provisions which one finds in the Prescription Act.

[24] It is, in any event, on the facts, unnecessary to seek to import prescription principles into this inquiry or to make parallels with prescription, and we were not addressed on the competency to do so.

[25] The complaint in this matter arose not only in the supply of defective goods but also in the refusal by the appellant to collect the vehicle at its own cost and make the refund…

[26] The refusal persists. The vehicle remains uncollected by the appellant, and there has been no refund…

[27] Accordingly, the conduct which founded the complaint is a course of conduct as contemplated in section 116, and the time period has not started running.”

Welcoming this judgment, the NCC’s Acting Commissioner, Mr Hardin Ratshisusu, stated: “The NCC welcomes this judgment, particularly as it clarifies the jurisdiction of the NCC to investigate and prosecute continuing conduct that remains unresolved.  Consumers will now be able to file complaints in circumstances where suppliers unduly delay providing redress, with the hope that such complaints would lapse.  This will ensure section 116 of the CPA (regarding time bar) is applied in a manner that fully protects consumers.” 

Sandton Repo must therefore refund the consumer R459 900 (Four Hundred and Fifty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Rand) and pay an administrative penalty of R100 000 (One Hundred Thousand Rand), as ordered by the Tribunal.

 Ends

 Issued by: National Consumer Commission (NCC)  

 For media enquiries, contact:

 Phetho Ntaba (Spokesperson/MLO)  082 809 2031/012 065 2040