The High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an appeal against a National Consumer Tribunal decision which found that a motor dealer contravened multiple provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in the sale of a second-hand truck.
In a decision handed down on 13 April 2026, the Full Court ordered repayment of R316 250 to Sbuyile Transport (Pty) Ltd, represented by Sihle Ndlovu, plus punitive costs.
Edan’s appeal attacked the Tribunal’s findings of contravention on the basis that they were not supported by the evidence, but it made no submissions directed at the remedy. The High Court held that the Tribunal’s findings were, “in the main, consistent with the evidence before it”, and declined to interfere with the refund order.
The papers before the Tribunal reflected a contracting sequence involving two different trucks and two different price sets.
Ndlovu initially identified a truck and agreed to a payment structure of R375 000 plus VAT and hydraulics. She signed an offer to purchase (OTP) and paid R20 000 as part of a 50% deposit, but later noticed the OTP reflected R405 000 and referred to a different vehicle. When she queried this, she was told the truck she had chosen was no longer available because someone else had selected it and paid a deposit.
Edan’s owner, Eddie Visser, then recommended an alternative truck as “very strong and in good condition”. A new OTP was issued for this second truck. Ndlovu paid an additional R158 800 towards the deposit on 1 October 2020, and the total amount she was to pay for this transaction was R316 250.
The High Court acknowledged that the evidentiary record was not neat: much of the material relied on by both parties was hearsay; the consumer represented herself and did not give oral evidence; and the Tribunal worked largely from documentary material (with some photographs) and the parties’ versions. Edan filed an affidavit and called Visser to testify after oral evidence was allowed, but the Tribunal confined him to factual testimony because no expert report was provided.
Despite these limitations, the Tribunal was entitled to infer from the chronology and the documentary record. When Ndlovu arrived to collect the truck on 5 November 2020 with a driver, it broke down during the test drive at Edan’s gate and would not start. She alleged repeated breakdowns continued shortly thereafter, and the vehicle never reliably performed the work for which it was bought.
On appeal, Edan argued, among other things, that the Tribunal had wrongly referred to the truck’s fuel tank as dysfunctional, and contended more broadly that Ndlovu had not shown that the problems complained of existed at the time of delivery.
The High Court held that even if the fuel-tank reference were left out, it did not undermine the Tribunal’s overall conclusion, and the Tribunal was entitled to infer serious defects at delivery from the sequence of events and the record as a whole.”
Conduct, not only condition
The judgment did not treat the matter only as a technical debate about mechanical causation. The Court held there was no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s findings that Edan’s conduct fell within the CPA’s prohibitions on unconscionable conduct and misleading representations.
In assessing Edan’s version, the Court described Visser’s evidence as “internally inconsistent, contradictory, and inherently unreliable”. The Court also accepted that his testimony supported the conclusion that the truck was not in a condition that a person new to the business, or without substantial mechanical knowledge, would be able to operate, and noted the safety implications that could arise from leaks and related problems.
The Court held that, on Visser’s own version, Edan’s conduct fell foul of section 40(2) of the CPA because he knew the truck was not suitable for an inexperienced buyer yet did not say so, instead representing it as a good option and thereby taking advantage of the consumer’s “ignorance”.
The Court went further: even if it were to find that none of the other Tribunal findings was justified, that conduct alone would still constitute unconscionable and prohibited conduct and “must give rise to relief” for the consumer.
The Court also upheld the Tribunal’s finding under section 41 of the CPA that, in the circumstances of this sale, Visser’s assurance that the truck was “very strong and in good condition” amounted to a misrepresentation regarding a material fact, and the Tribunal’s conclusion on this issue “should not be disturbed”.
Contractual terms cannot sidestep the CPA’s minimum standards
Edan relied on a limited one-month warranty and alleged the vehicle was sold “voetstoots”, but the record did not include a signed terms-and-conditions page; Edan produced an unsigned version. The Tribunal nonetheless found that the CPA’s protections applied, including the consumer’s right to goods that are reasonably suitable for their intended purpose, in good working order, free of defects, and durable for a reasonable period in the circumstances.
The High Court agreed that the section 55(6) exception – which requires the consumer to be specifically informed of the goods’ condition and to accept them expressly in that condition – did not apply on these facts. It also endorsed the Tribunal’s view that the CPA’s implied six-month warranty (section 56(2)) prevailed over any shorter contractual warranty.
Supplier’s burden to rebut
The judgment also addressed the evidentiary question that often arises in CPA disputes: who must prove what when problems emerge soon after delivery.
Relying on Toyota Randburg (a division of Motus Group Ltd) v Ndlovu and Another, the Court held that where a purchaser shows that problems arose very shortly after delivery, the onus rests on the supplier to rebut the inference that those problems indicate a defect at delivery and to prove, if it relies on it, that the issues arose from the purchaser’s negligence. The purchaser’s burden, the Court emphasised, is to demonstrate that the problems occurred – not to prove the technical cause of the problems.
On the record, the High Court held that Edan failed to rebut the inference that the truck was defective at delivery, particularly given the breakdown at collection and the subsequent pattern of malfunction.
Punitive consequences for poor appeal conduct
The Full Court’s punitive costs order was also driven by procedural concerns.
The Court noted it was unusual for an appeal to come before a Full Court without leave, which ordinarily helps to define the issues on appeal. In this case, because the notice of appeal did not have to set out the grounds under Rule 49(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the Court said the grounds should at least have been stated clearly and properly in the appellant’s heads of argument.
The Court found that the grounds emerged only late in the heads and were not articulated clearly in oral argument, creating the impression of inadequate preparation and limited assistance to the Court.
The Court further criticised the Caselines record as “entirely unsatisfactory”, noting repetition, incorrect labelling, and poor navigability, and recorded that the appellant’s representatives had ignored directives drawing attention to the applicable requirements and the risk of the matter being struck for non-compliance.
Although the Court said it would have been entitled to strike the appeal on that basis, it proceeded to determine it to avoid further prejudice to the consumer, who had already waited years for the Tribunal’s relief. These considerations informed the attorney-and-client costs order.
Click here to download the judgment.
