The High Court in December 2025 held that section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) does not force a consumer to exhaust ombud or commission processes before suing in court, and it upheld a refund order where a second‑hand 4×4 vehicle quickly showed repeated defects and repair attempts did not resolve them.
A consumer bought a used 4×4 for R175,000 in August 2016 and took delivery a few days later. Almost immediately, warning lights linked to the ABS and 4×4 systems appeared. A diagnostic inspection soon afterwards returned fault codes pointing to possible problems in those systems, and the vehicle went in for repairs.
The problems did not end there. Shortly after being returned, the vehicle again failed and came to a standstill, leading to further repairs. Towards the end of September the consumer experienced additional issues (including exhaust‑related concerns and indications of a leak) and obtained an independent assessment report. Based on that report and his experiences of the vehicle’s unreliability, he tried to return the vehicle and demanded a refund. The dealer refused, and the dispute went to court.
On appeal, the dealer’s main procedural point was that the consumer should not have been allowed to sue in court because section 69 creates a “hierarchy” of remedies that must be followed first. The court rejected that approach. It emphasised that section 69 is written in permissive language (“may”), that the CPA contains no express ouster of a court’s jurisdiction, and that it is inconsistent with the CPA’s consumer‑protection purpose to trap consumers in technical routing arguments that do not solve the underlying problem.
The dealer also relied on a so‑called “limited warranty” (a short mechanical warranty period) to narrow the consumer’s rights. The court found, on the evidence, that the limitation was not properly drawn to the consumer’s attention at the time of purchase and was not explained as a waiver of CPA rights, particularly given that the paperwork was signed “fairly hastily”.
On the merits, the court considered the position straightforward in that the vehicle was not suitable for its intended purpose, was not of good quality nor in good working order, and was not durable for a reasonable period, despite attempts to repair it. The appeal was dismissed, with costs.
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.