The National Consumer Tribunal has dismissed an application by a consumer seeking permission to pursue a complaint against Lima Cars after he alleged that a used Ford Ranger, he bought for R283,000 was written off and repaired without this being disclosed to him.
P Moonsamy bought the used 2017 Ford Ranger from Lima Cars (Pty) Ltd on 21 June 2023.
According to the ruling, Moonsamy later claimed that the vehicle had been involved in a serious accident before he bought it, had been written off and subsequently repaired before being sold to him.
He further alleged that the vehicle had more than 30 electrical faults, missing airbags, misaligned body panels and mismatched paintwork, and that Lima Cars had failed to disclose its true condition.
Moonsamy said he had complained to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) and had also initiated civil legal action against the dealership.
He subsequently lodged a complaint with the National Consumer Commission (NCC) on August 23, 2023.
However, on September 17, 2024, the NCC issued a notice of non-referral, stating that the complaint could not be referred to the tribunal because Lima Cars was already a respondent in proceedings under another section of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) relating to substantially the same conduct.
Moonsamy then approached the tribunal on March 19, 2026, about 18 months after the NCC’s notice.
Because the tribunal’s rules require an application to refer a matter to be filed within 20 business days of a notice of non-referral, he applied for condonation for the late filing. The application was not opposed by Lima Cars or the NCC.
Tribunal could not entertain the complaint
In its ruling, the tribunal said the central issue was not the alleged faults in the vehicle or the reasons for Moonsamy’s delay, but the legal effect of the NCC’s notice of non-referral.
Section 75(1) of the CPA allows a consumer to refer a complaint directly to the tribunal with leave after receiving a notice of non-referral. However, the Tribunal explained that this does not apply where the NCC’s notice was issued on grounds contemplated by Section 116 of the CPA.
Section 116(2) provides that a complaint may not be referred to the tribunal or a consumer court against a person who is or has been a respondent in proceedings under another section of the CPA relating substantially to the same conduct.
The tribunal noted that the NCC’s notice specifically relied on section 116(2), stating that Lima Cars was already a respondent in proceedings concerning the same conduct.
The tribunal said that where a notice of non-referral is issued on grounds contemplated in section 116, the consumer cannot refer the complaint to the Tribunal for adjudication.
It further found that it did not have the power to review the NCC’s decision in those circumstances. If Moonsamy believed the NCC had erred in issuing the notice, the appropriate avenue was a judicial review application under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
Condonation application dismissed
The tribunal acknowledged that its rules allow it to condone late filings where good cause is shown.
However, it found that even if Moonsamy’s late filing were condoned, the tribunal would still have no power to grant him leave to refer the complaint because of the Section 116 ground relied on by the NCC.
The tribunal therefore concluded that Moonsamy had no reasonable prospect of obtaining leave and that granting condonation would serve no purpose.
The condonation application was consequently refused, with no order as to costs.
