- The High Court confirmed that the truck sold to Sihle Prisca Nokuthula Ndlovu was defective and unsuitable for its intended purpose.
- The court found that Edan Traders engaged in misleading and unconscionable conduct under the Consumer Protection Act.
- The appeal was dismissed with punitive costs after the supplier failed to justify its conduct and ignored court procedures.
The High Court in Pretoria has dismissed an appeal by Edan Traders Pty Ltd and confirmed that a truck sold to Sihle Prisca Nokuthula Ndlovu was defective, misrepresented, and unfit for the coal hauling business she intended to start.
The court upheld a National Consumer Tribunal ruling ordering a full refund of R316 250, reinforcing the protections afforded to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Judge S Yacoob found that the supplier’s conduct fell squarely within prohibited practices, emphasising that the law places clear obligations on sellers to provide goods that are functional, suitable, and honestly described. The court rejected Edan’s attempt to overturn the Tribunal’s findings, concluding that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the buyer’s case.
Background to the dispute
Ndlovu purchased a second-hand truck from Edan Traders in September 2020 after being advised that it was “very strong and in good condition.” She intended to use the vehicle to start a coal hauling business. Shortly after taking delivery, the truck began to malfunction and repeatedly broke down, preventing her from completing even a single delivery.
Judge Yacoob noted that the problems started immediately, saying, “It malfunctioned from the outset, on the test drive and then within days of purchase.” The vehicle broke down on the first day of collection and continued to experience persistent mechanical failures, including overheating, fuel system issues, and component damage.
Despite multiple repair attempts and ongoing communication with the supplier, the truck never became operational. Ndlovu ultimately lost her hauling contract and abandoned the business after being unable to afford further repairs.
Parties and competing versions
Edan Traders, represented by its financial manager, Gert Scheepers and witness Eddie Visser, argued that the breakdowns were caused by Ndlovu’s alleged failure to keep the truck properly fuelled. The supplier relied on reports suggesting that low fuel levels led to engine damage.
However, the court found this version inconsistent and unsupported. Judge Yacoob criticised the evidence, stating, “It is clear that Mr Visser’s evidence was internally inconsistent, contradictory and inherently unreliable.” The court also noted that the reports relied on by Edan were not contemporaneous and lacked clarity on how conclusions were reached.
Ndlovu’s version, supported by documentary evidence and communications, demonstrated a pattern of recurring defects from the outset. The court accepted that she relied on the supplier’s expertise and was not required to prove the technical cause of the failures.
Court findings on liability
The court confirmed that once a consumer shows that problems arose shortly after delivery, the burden shifts to the supplier to prove that the defects did not exist at the time of sale or were caused by the consumer. Edan failed to discharge this burden.
Judge Yacoob held, “The inference made by the Tribunal that there were serious defects at the time of purchase is consistent with the evidence.” The court further found that the truck was not suitable for its intended purpose and posed safety risks.
On the issue of misrepresentation, the court found that describing the truck as being in good condition was materially misleading. Judge Yacoob said, “It is clear that by telling Ms Ndlovu that the truck was ‘very strong and in good condition’… Edan fell foul of these provisions.”
Consumer Protection Act violations
The judgment confirmed multiple contraventions of the Consumer Protection Act, including unconscionable conduct, misleading representations, and the use of unfair contractual terms. The court found that Edan took advantage of Ndlovu’s lack of technical knowledge and failed to disclose critical information about the truck’s condition.
Judge Yacoob was explicit on this point, saying, “He knew that the truck was not suitable for a person with no mechanical knowledge… and did not tell her.” The court held that this alone amounted to prohibited conduct.
The court also rejected the supplier’s reliance on a voetstoots clause and a limited one-month warranty. It confirmed that the statutory six-month implied warranty cannot be excluded, stating that the consumer “was entitled by law to a six-month warranty and this overrode the one-month warranty contained in the contract.”
Outcome and costs
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order requiring Edan to refund the full purchase price. It found no basis to interfere with either the findings or the remedy.
In addition, the court issued a punitive costs order against Edan, citing serious procedural failures. Judge Yacoob criticised the state of the appeal record and the conduct of the legal representatives, noting that the court “would have been entitled to strike the matter” due to non-compliance.
The final order confirmed that the appeal is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, marking a decisive outcome in favour of the consumer.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
