A North West mother has emerged victorious in a protracted legal battle over a defective 2012 Ford Ranger she purchased for her son, forcing a major financial institution to return a significant sum of money after her relentless pursuit of justice.

The woman bought a Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCI 4×4 in December 2017. The sale transaction was concluded after the son negotiated the deal with a local motor dealer, Autorama, in Klerksdorp

The car was financed by FirstRand Bank and the transaction included a hefty deposit of R150,000 through a trade-in vehicle, with a balance of over R268,000 remaining. There was also a monthly payment of R3,700 over a 72-month term.

Four days after the vehicle was delivered, it experienced problems relating to the oil cooler and the gearbox. The son returned the vehicle to Autorama, where the gearbox was replaced. In January 2018, the vehicle was returned to the son, however, within two months the vehicle overheated, and he again returned the vehicle to Autorama, stating that he was no longer interested in having it, and that the salesperson at the dealership should cancel the agreement.

In a letter addressed to Autorama and the bank, the son’s attorney cancelled the deal in writing in April 2018.

The bank did not accept the cancellation and elected to institute an action in the high court over the cancellation of the agreement. The woman also instituted a counterclaim seeking a refund and cancellation of the agreement.

During the trial, the mother testified that neither she nor her son were aware of any pre-existing defects at the time of purchase. A pivotal moment came when a mechanic, Mr Moodley, confirmed the vehicle’s multiple defects, suggesting it had likely been in an accident prior to the sale and had mistakenly been fitted with an inappropriate gearbox. His findings were supported by photographs showing that the bolts of the oil cooler were not properly fastened, causing the cooler to become loose.

Despite compelling evidence of latent defects, FirstRand’s legal team chose to close their case without calling any witnesses.

The High Court ruled in favour of the bank, asserting it was merely a financier in the transaction, not the vehicle supplier. The judgment contended that the mother should have pursued cancellation at the initial signs of defect. Additionally, it stated she should have exhausted remedies under the Consumer Protection Act before counterclaiming against the bank.

Still willing to fight, the woman sought relief at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) where the matter was heard by a full bench.

The SCA said Mr Moodley’s evidence was overwhelming and it supported findings that the vehicle had latent defects which impacted the utility of the vehicle.

The SCA further added that the high court was misdirected in its evaluation of the evidence and by not finding that the vehicle was latently, materially defective.

It was also added that the woman brought a counterclaim because the bank elected to institute its claim in the high court.

“She had no choice but to proceed with her counterclaim in the forum elected by the bank and she had to do so in terms of the uniform rules of court. Any interpretation that would effectively result in closing the door of the court to a consumer in circumstances where she was brought to the court by the bank and where she defends the claim instituted against her by the bank, would be in conflict with the purpose of the CPA and Section 34 of the Constitution, which imposes a positive obligation on the state to provide a consumer access to an appropriate forum,” said the court.

The SCA set aside the order of the high court and ordered cancellation of the credit agreement as well as a refund of over R170,000 with interest of 10,25%.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.

Source link