Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd t/a Zambezi Multi Franchise and Another v Wentzel

Ms Abigail Wentzel purchased a new Renault Kwid motor vehicle from Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd t/a Zambezi Multi Franchise, financed through an instalment sale agreement with a third-party financier. Shortly after delivery in December 2017, she complained of various defects, including noises, electrical issues, Bluetooth malfunction, braking noise and loose roof rails. The vehicle was returned to the dealer on three occasions between December 2017 and February 2018, and repairs were carried out each time at no cost. Renault maintained that all defects reported were repaired. Dissatisfied, Ms Wentzel referred the matter to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) in February 2018, seeking a refund. Before MIOSA finalised the complaint, she instituted High Court proceedings seeking cancellation of the sale and a full refund of the purchase price under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA). The High Court granted the refund. Motus Corporation and Renault South Africa appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application, with no order as to costs.

The case clarifies the application of the Consumer Protection Act refund remedy under s 56(3), confirming that a consumer bears the onus of proving that statutory requirements for a refund are met. It also cautions against granting final relief in motion proceedings where there are material disputes of fact. The judgment provides important guidance on the interpretation of s 69 of the CPA and the consumer’s right of access to courts, although these remarks were not finally determinative.