In Avura Motors t/a Avura Executive Auto v National Consumer Commission and Others (A68/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1129 (1 October 2025), the appellant, a second-hand car dealership, sold a pre-owned Mazda vehicle to a consumer. Within 28 days of the sale, the vehicle developed such significant radiator problems that it was no longer usable. Despite requests for assistance, the dealership denied liability and refused to assist the consumer, who had to resort to his insurer. The consumer’s insurance assessor inspected the vehicle and found a grossly deteriorated and internally rusted engine cooling system. The costs of repairs amounted to over R100,000. The consumer initially sought assistance from the Motor Industry of South Africa, and thereafter lodged a complaint with the National Consumer Commission (Consumer Commission). 

The consumer argued that the cause of the damage was a latent defect present at the time of the sale of the vehicle that only became evident 28 days later. In response, the dealership argued that the damage was caused by the consumer’s own negligence in failing to maintain the vehicle.

The Tribunal’s finding

The National Consumer Tribunal (Tribunal) found that the dealership had contravened certain sections of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA), in particular the consumer’s right to safe, good quality goods and the implied warranty of quality (sections 55 and 56, respectively). The Tribunal granted the relief that was sought by the Consumer Commission on the consumer’s behalf, directed the dealership to pay the costs of the repairs, and fined the dealership R100,000. The dealership appealed against the Commission’s findings to the High Court. 

The High Court’s judgment

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It confirmed the Tribunal’s finding that the vehicle had been sold with a latent defect which made it unsuitable for continued use without significant repairs and associated costs. In reaching this finding, the High Court considered the provisions of section 55 (right to safe, good quality goods) and section 56 (implied warranty of quality) of the CPA.

In terms of section 55, every consumer has a right to receive goods that are reasonably suitable for purpose; are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects; will be useable for a reasonable period of time; and comply with any applicable standards.

In terms of section 56, there is an implied warranty of quality. In any supply of goods there is an implied provision that the goods comply with the minimum quality standards of section 55. If the goods fail to comply, the consumer may return the goods to the supplier within six months of the delivery. The supplier must, at the direction of the consumer, either repair or replace the failed, unsafe or defective goods; or refund to the consumer the price paid by the consumer, for the goods.

The High Court found that both these sections had been contravened: firstly, the Tribunal had correctly found that, on a balance of probabilities, the type and extent of corrosion and rust contamination was a latent defect in the vehicle at the time of its sale, and unlikely to have developed within the short period following delivery. There was no evidence that the damage was caused by the consumer’s negligence or normal wear and tear. Secondly, the dealership had refused to repair the vehicle when the consumer requested it be repaired.

The High Court reiterated the importance of acknowledging the underlying purpose of these consumer rights in the CPA:

“the rights afforded to consumers under the CPA are there to protect consumers, and an infringement of these rights can have serious financial consequences for consumers”.

In short, a core purpose of the CPA is to provide redress to consumers whose rights have been infringed.

The High Court further confirmed the reasonableness of the administrative fine imposed. In terms of section 112, the Tribunal has a discretion to impose an administrative fine in respect of prohibited conduct. Such administrative fine may not exceed the greater of (i) 10% of the guilty party’s annual turnover during the preceding financial year; or (ii) R1 million. When determining an appropriate administrative fine, the Tribunal must consider the following factors: the nature, duration, gravity and extent of the contravention; any loss suffered; the behaviour of the respondent; the market circumstances in which the contravention took place; any profit derived from the contravention; the degree to which the respondent has co-operated; and any previous contraventions. The Tribunal has, in recent instances, imposed fines of up to the R1 million threshold. The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s exercise of its discretion.

Conclusion

Roald Dahl’s Matilda’s caricature of second-hand car salesman, Harry Wormwood, who cheated customers by filling gearboxes with sawdust, repairing parts with superglue and rolling back the odometers is an extreme literary exaggeration. However, the recent judgments of the Tribunal demonstrate that many of the complaints lodged with the Consumer Commission concerning motor vehicle disputes, in particular, turn on whether a defect is latent or caused by wear and tear. This case is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that goods supplied meet prescribed minimum standards and that businesses’ return, refund and repair policies comply with the CPA.