Cartoria Motor Industries (Pty) Ltd v Swanepoel

The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, bought a 1995 Mitsubishi Pajero from the respondent in December 2000 for R120 000. The vehicle was described in the written purchase agreement as a 2.8 Pajero. It later emerged that the vehicle was in fact a 2.5 model, which had a lower market value. The appellant alleged that it relied on the incorrect description when valuing the vehicle and would have paid R100 000 had the true model been disclosed. The appellant sued the respondent in the magistrate’s court on several alternative causes of action, including fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming R20 000 in damages. At the close of the appellant’s case, the magistrate granted absolution from the instance. An appeal to the Transvaal Provincial Division was dismissed, and the appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded. The order of the Transvaal Provincial Division was set aside and replaced with an order upholding the appeal, setting aside the magistrate’s grant of absolution from the instance, and remitting the matter to the magistrate’s court for continuation of the trial. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

The case reaffirms the correct test for absolution from the instance in South African civil procedure and emphasises that courts should not assess the plaintiff’s case on a balance of probabilities at that stage. It also clarifies the prima facie evidentiary requirements for fraudulent misrepresentation, particularly in relation to proof of damages based on market value, and underscores that subsequent events do not negate loss suffered at the time of the delict.