The National Consumer Tribunal of South Africa has dismissed an application by P Moonsamy, who sought permission to pursue a complaint against Lima Cars. Moonsamy alleged that a used 2017 Ford Ranger he bought for R283,000 was written off and repaired without disclosure. The vehicle was purchased on 21 June 2023, and Moonsamy claimed it had over 30 electrical faults, missing airbags, and misaligned body panels.
Moonsamy lodged a complaint with the National Consumer Commission (NCC) on August 23, 2023. However, the NCC issued a notice of non-referral on September 17, 2024, stating that the complaint could not be referred to the tribunal. This was due to Lima Cars being a respondent in proceedings under another section of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) relating to substantially the same conduct.
Moonsamy approached the tribunal on March 19, 2026, about 18 months after the NCC's notice. As the tribunal's rules require an application to refer a matter to be filed within 20 business days of a notice of non-referral, Moonsamy applied for condonation for the late filing. The application was not opposed by Lima Cars or the NCC.
The tribunal's ruling stated that the central issue was not the alleged faults in the vehicle or Moonsamy's delay, but the legal effect of the NCC's notice of non-referral. Section 75(1) of the CPA allows a consumer to refer a complaint directly to the tribunal with leave after receiving a notice of non-referral. However, this does not apply where the NCC's notice was issued on grounds contemplated by Section 116 of the CPA.
The tribunal noted that the NCC's notice specifically relied on section 116(2), stating that Lima Cars was already a respondent in proceedings concerning the same conduct. In such cases, the tribunal found that it did not have the power to review the NCC's decision. If Moonsamy believed the NCC had erred, the appropriate avenue was a judicial review application under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
The tribunal acknowledged that its rules allow for condonation of late filings where good cause is shown. However, it found that even if Moonsamy's late filing were condoned, the tribunal would still have no power to grant him leave to refer the complaint. The condonation application was consequently refused, with no order as to costs.
Moonsamy had also complained to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) and initiated civil legal action against the dealership. The tribunal's decision highlights the complexities of consumer protection law and the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. The ruling has significant implications for consumers and businesses alike, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the CPA's provisions.
Key points
- The National Consumer Tribunal dismissed Moonsamy's application due to the NCC's notice of non-referral being issued under Section 116 of the CPA.
- The tribunal found it did not have the power to review the NCC's decision in this case.
- Moonsamy's condonation application for late filing was refused, with no order as to costs.
