- Thuli Thecla Nagel is suing Garden City Motors for around R400,000, saying her Mercedes-Benz was returned in worse condition than when it was towed in for repairs.
- Her expert had already given evidence in person when the trial stalled, and he later relocated to Germany.
- The High Court found that the decision to allow him to testify remotely could not be appealed before the trial was finished.
Nagel’s dispute with NMI Durban South Motors, which trades as Garden City Motors, began when her 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLC 220d broke down on Lydenburg Road on 19 April 2019.
Her vehicle was towed for repairs, but Nagel later believed it was in worse shape than when she handed it over. According to the judgment, experts who examined the car supported her concerns.
Nagel asked for compensation, but Garden City Motors denied responsibility. She went on to sue the company in the Mbombela Regional Court for about R400,000. The trial started on 10 February 2022, with Nagel and her expert, Mr Faltermeier, giving their evidence.
Nagel was cross-examined, but Garden City Motors had not yet cross-examined Faltermeier when the trial was postponed at their request. The case was then postponed indefinitely. Four years went by. The Regional Magistrate retired, and Faltermeier moved to Germany, which left Nagel with a practical problem since the expert still needed to be cross-examined.
Magistrate allows audiovisual testimony
Nagel applied under Section 51C of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and Rule 26A of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules, asking for Faltermeier to give the rest of his evidence by audiovisual link. Garden City Motors opposed the application.
The retired Regional Magistrate came back to hear the application and granted it on 30 September 2025, allowing Faltermeier to testify remotely. Garden City Motors then appealed the decision.
The motor dealer argued that remote testimony could make it harder to cross-examine the expert properly. They raised concerns about being able to observe Faltermeier, manage documents, detect prompting, and keep the cross-examination fair.
They also said that because Faltermeier had already testified in person, letting him finish his evidence remotely would create an unfair split in how his testimony was given.
Motor dealer challenges remote cross-examination
Garden City Motors also questioned whether Nagel had properly shown that Faltermeier would not be able to testify in person at a future date. The company argued that the application relied on trial dates that had already passed, and that Nagel had not given enough evidence about the expert’s location, availability, ability to travel, or willingness to return to South Africa.
They also said the Regional Magistrate did not give enough weight to the possible problems with cross-examining someone remotely. But Nagel raised a preliminary objection to the appeal itself. She argued that the Magistrate’s decision on how Faltermeier would give evidence was only an interim order. It did not decide the merits of her R400000 claim, so it could not be appealed right away.
High Court says appeal is premature
Acting Judge President TV Ratshibvumo and Acting Judge PL Nobanda heard the appeal in the High Court in Mbombela. The judges agreed with Nagel that the order allowing audiovisual evidence could not be appealed at this stage.
Acting Judge President Ratshibvumo explained that an appeal from a Magistrates’ Court in a civil case could only be brought against an order that has the effect of a final judgment.
The decision under Rule 26A did not meet that test. “The ruling on Rule 26A is not definitive of the parties’ rights,” said Acting Judge President Ratshibvumo. “It decides nothing about the merits of the underlying vehicle dispute, only how a portion of one witness’s evidence will be placed before the court.”
The ruling only decided how Faltermeier’s evidence would be given. It did not decide whether Garden City Motors was liable for Nagel’s Mercedes or if she should get the money she was claiming.
Dealer fails to show serious prejudice
The High Court also considered whether it would be fair to hear the appeal right away. Garden City Motors argued that cross-examining Faltermeier remotely could cause problems, especially since they wanted to test his credibility, reliability, and methods while questioning him.
The High Court found that the motor dealer had not shown that it would suffer any serious harm if it had to wait until the end of the trial to challenge the use of audiovisual evidence. Acting Judge President Ratshibvumo said that if the remote evidence was ultimately found to have been wrongly admitted, an appeal court could address the issue after the trial was finished.
“I do not see why the appellate court would not do the same if it were found that such audiovisual evidence should have been disallowed,” said Acting Judge President Ratshibvumo. The court also found that Nagel could suffer real harm if Faltermeier’s evidence was left out, because it could not simply be introduced during an appeal.
Seven-year dispute still awaits trial
The judges noted their concern about how long the proceedings had taken, pointing out that the trial had already dragged on for years and was still nowhere near finished.
Acting Judge President Ratshibvumo said the situation was especially troubling because the case involved “an ordinary member of the public.” He said that the way it was handled could discourage people from seeking justice through the courts.
The High Court upheld Nagel’s preliminary point, found that the 30 September 2025 order could not be appealed, and struck Garden City Motors’ appeal from the roll. Garden City Motors was ordered to pay Nagel’s appeal costs on the party-and-party scale.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
