Selling a used car “as is” and without a warranty does not strip buyers of their rights under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). That was the message from the National Consumer Tribunal in a ruling against Nolly Motors (Pty) Ltd, a used car dealership located in Kempton Park.
On 13 April 2022, Cwayita Ntombekaya Makubalo entered a R146 000 agreement with Nolly Motors for a 2013 Audi A4. The contract stated the vehicle was sold “as is”, limited the dealer’s responsibility to electrical faults within the first 30 days, prohibited exchanges after three days, and imposed steep penalties for cancelling.
Makubalo took delivery on 15 April. Two days later, she detected the following:
- A leaking overflow tank causing overheating.
- Poorly fitted suspension made of substandard parts.
- Brake fluid leak.
- All four tyres were worn.
- No service history.
- Missing equipment, including a jack, wheel spanner, and spare tyre.
On 19 April, Makubalo’s emailed Nolly Motors listing most of these issues and requested an urgent response. The same day, she obtained a R6 160 quotation for tyres and on 20 April paid R8 440 for repairs at Farm Garage, which included replacing the water pump and resealing the front cover.
After a follow-up email and WhatsApp on 28 April, Nolly Motors replied via WhatsApp that no repairs would be done, and any work would be at her own cost. On 29 April, she phoned the dealership to request cancellation of the sale and a refund, citing unaffordable repairs.
Makubalo also alleged that the Audi was accident-damaged, contrary to her explicit instructions before the sale, and that the “voetstoots” sale conditions violated the CPA.
Further repairs were done on 26 May and 6 June – suspension work and wheel alignment, costing R11 900.
The dealership refused to carry out any repairs. It also ignored her request to cancel the sale and refund the purchase price.
Makubalo complained to the National Consumer Commission (NCC) in October 2022. After investigating, the NCC filed an application with the National Consumer Tribunal on 29 April 2025, in terms of section 73(2)(b) of the CPA. This provision allows the NCC to refer a matter to the Tribunal if, after completing an investigation, it believes a person has engaged in prohibited conduct.
In its application, the NCC asked the Tribunal to declare that Nolly Motors had contravened several provisions of the CPA and that these breaches be declared prohibited conduct.
Part of the complaint – relating to alleged unfair, unreasonable, or unjust contract terms under sections 48 and 51 of the CPA – was dismissed. The Tribunal found these claims were time-barred under section 116, because the sales agreement was signed on 13 April 2022 and the referral came more than three years later.
However, the Tribunal found that Nolly Motors had breached sections 56(2)(a) and (b), read with section 55(2)(a) to (c). The evidence showed the vehicle’s suspension was defective and of substandard quality, making it unsuitable for normal use.
As the matter was undefended, the Tribunal accepted the NCC’s version of events. It concluded that the dealership’s refusal to repair the defective suspension and its failure to honour the cancellation request amounted to a clear breach of the CPA.
The Tribunal did not uphold claims about the missing spare wheel, wheel spanner, and jack, finding these items were not “defects” as defined in section 55 of the CPA when read with section 53. Their absence, while inconvenient or contrary to what was promised, did not affect whether the vehicle was:
- reasonably suitable for its intended purpose;
- of good quality and in good working order; or
- durable for a reasonable time – the legal test for a “defect” under the Act.
Similarly, the claim about the brake fluid leak was excluded because it had never been reported to the dealership, meaning it could not be considered when determining whether the supplier failed to address reported defects.
Quoting from its ruling, the Tribunal said:
“After the consumer notified the respondent of problems with the vehicle within the first month of its purchase and requested a cancellation of the sales agreement and a refund of the purchase price, the respondent denied the consumer these rights under section 56(2), which meant the consumer was stuck with the vehicle ever since.
“The Tribunal is mindful of the time that has elapsed since then but is nevertheless of the view that it is appropriate to make an order enforcing the consumer’s right to cancel the sale agreement and for the respondent to refund the vehicle’s purchase price to the consumer.”
The NCC’s acting Commissioner, Hardin Ratshisusu, said the judgment reaffirmed the importance of suppliers to respect consumer rights in the marketplace.
“This judgment should serve as a deterrence to other suppliers from engaging in similar conduct,” he said.
