A December 2025 ruling by the Western Cape High Court has reinforced two critical consumer protections: buyers do not have to exhaust ombud or commission processes before approaching a court under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and dealerships cannot hide behind voetstoots clauses or limited warranties when selling defective vehicles.
Acting Judge Phillipa van Zyl dismissed an appeal by Pure Silk Invest 2 (Pty) Ltd, trading as Group 1 Nissan Kuils River, and upheld a magistrate’s order requiring the dealership to refund R175 000 to Jacques Alex Martin against return of a defective Nissan Navara 2.5 dCi SE 4×4.
The judgment clarifies section 69 of the CPA and strengthens consumers’ ability to seek direct court relief where goods fail to meet statutory standards.
Donald Dinnie, a director at Norton Rose Fulbright, says the practical message is simple.
“If a product (including a used vehicle) shows recurring defects soon after purchase, a consumer is not automatically required to run through multiple external forums before approaching a court. And if a supplier wants to rely on a limitation like a ‘limited warranty’, the warranty needs to be clearly disclosed and properly explained, especially where it would reduce statutory protections.”
Choice rather than obligation
The Court reaffirmed that section 69 of the CPA does not force consumers into a rigid hierarchy of remedies before they may sue.
The dealership argued that the consumer should first have followed alternative dispute resolution routes – such as an ombud or the National Consumer Commission (NCC) – before approaching a court. The High Court rejected this.
The judge held that section 69 is framed in permissive language. It uses the word “may”, indicating choice rather than obligation. There is no express exclusion of the High Court’s jurisdiction in the CPA, and there is a strong presumption against interpreting legislation as ousting the court’s jurisdiction unless that is clearly stated.
Referring to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wentzel (2021), the High Court emphasised that section 69(d) should not lightly be read as excluding a consumer’s right of access to a court. The Act is designed to protect consumers and ensure accessible, transparent, and efficient redress.
The High Court concluded that the Magistrate’s Court was correct in dismissing the dealership’s special plea of lack of jurisdiction.
A pension-funded business plan derailed
Martin used his pension to buy a used Nissan Navara from the dealership for R175 000. He intended to start a small landscaping business after retirement and required a functional 4×4 vehicle.
He took delivery on 23 August 2016. The next day, warning lights relating to the ABS and 4×4 systems appeared. Within weeks:
- Fault codes were detected.
- Repairs were attempted.
- The vehicle broke down and came to a standstill.
- Further repairs followed.
- An exhaust issue emerged.
- A fluid leak was discovered.
- A Dekra inspection raised additional concerns.
Despite repeated repair attempts, problems persisted. Concerned about safety and reliability, Martin returned the vehicle and demanded a refund. The dealership refused.
He instituted action in November 2016, relying on both the CPA and the common law remedy of the actio redhibitoria (cancellation and refund for defective goods).
The magistrate ordered the refund against return of the vehicle. The dealership appealed.
The legal issues: section 69, warranties, and voetstoots
The appeal raised two central questions:
- Did the court have jurisdiction, or should the consumer first have gone to an ombud or the NCC under section 69 of the CPA?
- Did the vehicle meet the CPA’s standards for quality, and could the dealership rely on a limited warranty or “as is” sale?
The High Court found that section 69 provides alternative forums, not a compulsory sequence. Unlike legislation such as the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, the CPA does not expressly require exhaustion of internal remedies before litigation.
Interpreting section 69 as barring direct court access would undermine section 34 of the Constitution and the consumer-protection purpose of the CPA.
CPA protections override vague ‘limited warranties’
On the merits, the Court found the case “simple” and said it did not bode well for the dealership.
The dealership argued the buyer knew he was purchasing a second-hand vehicle and had agreed to a limited mechanical warranty of 1 000km or one month.
However, the evidence showed:
- The limitation was not properly explained.
- The consumer’s attention was not drawn to any waiver of CPA rights.
- No CPA-related disclosures were made.
- The vehicle should, by the dealership’s own internal policy, have gone to trade rather than being sold to the public.
- Staff had no training on CPA obligations.
The Court held that age and mileage relate to wear and tear, not to defects. A used vehicle must still be of good quality, in good working order, free of defects, and usable and durable for a reasonable period.
Under section 56 of the CPA, there is an implied six-month warranty of quality. If goods fail within that period, the consumer may demand repair, replacement, or refund. If defects recur after repair within three months, the supplier must replace or refund.
The High Court found that the requirements set out by the SCA in Wentzel were met:
- Repairs were attempted within six months.
- Problems recurred.
- Defects were reported.
- The defects were material, affecting functionality, safety, and usability.
The vehicle was ultimately considered unsafe to drive. The series of issues substantially undermined its suitability for the purpose for which it was bought.
The Court also emphasised that general voetstoots clauses cannot defeat the CPA. Section 51 prohibits terms that waive or deprive consumers of rights under the Act, and section 48 prohibits unfair or unreasonable terms.
A supplier cannot rely on a vague “as is” description to escape liability for undisclosed defects.
Read the full judgment here.
