The North Gauteng High Court recently reaffirmed the strength of South Africa’s Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) in the used-car industry. In Avura Motors t/a Avura Executive Auto v National Consumer Commission and Others (A68/2025), the court dismissed an appeal by a second-hand car dealership that had sold a defective Mazda BT-50 to a consumer, confirming that motor dealers can be held liable for latent defects discovered after sale

The decision underscores that the CPA protects buyers not just at the moment of purchase, but for a reasonable period thereafter.

Background to the Dispute

In July 2022, Avura Motors, a Pretoria-based dealership, sold a 2014 Mazda BT-50 with over 185 000 km on the clock for R288 577. Within four weeks, the buyer, Mr Vukani Muthaki, began experiencing serious mechanical issues, the engine overheated, the vehicle stalled repeatedly, and eventually became inoperable.

When Mr Muthaki contacted Avura Motors for assistance, the dealership refused to help, citing a “30-day or 1 000 km” warranty period that had just expired. Left stranded, the consumer turned to his insurer and paid over R31 000 out of pocket for repairs, with his insurer covering an additional R75 000.

After failing to obtain assistance from the Motor Industry Ombudsman (MIOSA), Mr Muthaki referred the complaint to the National Consumer Commission (NCC), which initiated an investigation and referred the case to the National Consumer Tribunal

The Tribunal’s Findings

The Tribunal reviewed an independent assessor’s report showing severe rust and corrosion throughout the vehicle’s cooling system, damage that could not have developed within 28 days. The corrosion, it concluded, was a latent defect that existed when the vehicle was sold.

The Tribunal rejected the dealership’s claim that the consumer had been negligent, finding no evidence that he ignored warning signals, failed to service the vehicle, or misused it.

Avura Motors was found to have breached sections 55(2)(a) and 56(2)(a) of the CPA:

• Section 55(2) gives consumers the right to receive goods that are suitable for their intended purpose, of good quality, and free from defects.
• Section 56(2) allows consumers to return defective goods within six months, requiring suppliers to repair, replace, or refund the item at their own cost.

As a result, the Tribunal ordered Avura Motors to reimburse the consumer and his insurer for the repair costs and imposed a fine of R100 000, payable to the National Revenue Fund

The Appeal and the High Court’s Ruling

Avura Motors appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal had relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence by accepting the assessor’s report without live testimony. However, Judge Davis (with Judge Bam concurring) dismissed this argument, noting that the dealership itself had relied on the same report during earlier proceedings. Raising the objection only at the appeal stage was deemed a “sharp practice,” an attempt to benefit from a document when convenient, only to discredit it later

The court held that the Tribunal’s findings were fully justified. The corrosion and rust were long-term defects, not issues caused by the consumer. There was no proof of negligence, no missed service obligations, and no warning lights that would have alerted the buyer to any problem.

Judge Davis concluded that the vehicle had clearly been sold with a latent defect, making it unfit for purpose under section 55 of the CPA.

The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming both the fine and the order for reimbursement.

Significance of the Judgment

This case reinforces several key consumer-protection principles:

• Dealers bear the risk of latent defects. Once a car is sold, a seller cannot rely on short “dealer warranties” to escape liability under the CPA.
• The six-month protection period in section 56 overrides any contractual limitation that is inconsistent with the Act.
• Consumers do not need to prove negligence. It is enough to show that the defect existed at the time of sale.
• Tribunal evidence standards are pragmatic. Documents such as expert reports may be admitted on a balance of probabilities, even without live testimony, if they are reliable and undisputed.
• Fines must be proportionate but meaningful. A R100 000 penalty was found to be appropriate to deter similar conduct within the motor-trade sector.

Lessons for Dealers and Consumers

For dealerships, this case is a stark reminder that compliance with the CPA is not optional. Every pre-owned vehicle sold must meet the minimum quality standards of section 55, and any warranty or disclaimer that contradicts these provisions will be unenforceable.

For consumers, it affirms that the CPA provides real protection. Buyers of used cars have the right to repairs, replacement, or refund if defects arise within six months, even if the dealer claims the problem is “wear and tear.”

Conclusion

The Avura Motors judgment sends a clear message to the automotive industry: selling defective vehicles under the guise of “as-is” sales will not withstand legal scrutiny. The CPA empowers consumers and places a strict duty on dealers to ensure that vehicles are safe, durable, and fit for purpose.

As enforcement actions by the National Consumer Commission increase, dealerships would be well advised to review their sales practices, service procedures, and consumer-complaint policies to avoid costly sanctions.