The ping-pong battle between an aggrieved car buyer, a dealership and WesBank that has dragged on for 20 years now is no closer to being resolved as the two parties argue the merits of Constitutional Court rules regarding missed dates to file opposing affidavits.

The customer’s attorneys argue the respondents missed the October 30, 2024 deadline to file an answering affidavit and had not applied for condonation. On the contrary, the respondents are adamant the last day to do so was no later than November 4, 2024, which deadline they met, on October 31, 2024, “within the time stated in the applicant’s notice”.

This is contained in a letter to the Registrar of the apex court where Don Maree Attorneys, for the respondents, argues they did not miss any deadline to indicate their intention to oppose the application nor to file an answering affidavit.

However, Mzukisi Lubabalo Ndara, the applicant dismisses Don Maree’s assertions as disingenuous and desperate pointing out that the Respondents on October 31, 2024 filed an application for condonation for the late filing of their notice to oppose, wherein a senior lawyer pleads ignorance that they had to serve their opposing papers with the Registrar.

The matter now only awaits a Constitutional Court decision.

In it, a former senior government official who purchased a vehicle through a scheme financed by Wesbank has taken his legal tussle with the bank to the highest court in the land to find relief in a case he alleges was fraudulent from the date of the initial transaction in November 2004.

Twenty-years later, Ndara insists the Dealer Principal at the dealership, Jaen van Aardt, misrepresented the facts and sold him a dud.

Ndara says the 2004 Nissan X-Trail 2.2D Manual he took delivery of was valued at R270 000 but he was fraudulently charged R297 990 – the value of a “Nissan X-Trail 2.5 Petrol A/T, brand new”.

His preferred model, for which he traded in his 2003 Nissan Almera, was a used car.

For this indiscretion, Ndara is suing the bank and the dealership for R50 million.

But it does not look like the respondents are willing to concede defeat anytime soon.

But they have not shown any proof that the customer is misrepresenting the facts.

In the contested transaction, Ndara shows proof that the purchase price came to R333 000 after the dealership had inflated the figure, adding extras Ndara says he did not agree to: “They were never fitted onto the car.”

“Finance charges totalling R33 000 were added. I was paying an instalment of R8 000 per month. That’s all fraud,” Ndara declares.

He is now suing for R50 million. “Initially,” according to an affidavit deposed by the three respondents – Weir Investments, Wesbank and van Aardt – “he’d wanted payment by the respondents, jointly and severally of a sum of R10 000 000.00 as and for damages arising from pain and suffering, stress and trauma, past and future medical expenses, loss of income and pension benefits”.

Ndara says his two decades-long battle with Wesbank has exacted a huge toll on his life, including being fired from his government job and his wife succumbing to depression in 2023.

The vehicle at the centre of the row has been parked at a site in East London, Ndara says.

The case has had a long ‘shelf life’ in the courts. The High Court in Makhanda, delivered judgment on 5 March 2015 in terms of which the applicant's claim was dismissed on the basis that it had prescribed.

Ndara counters thus: “Does Wesbank realise that by pleading prescription they concur with me that they are responsible for the fraud and are simply arguing that it cannot be addressed because three years has elapsed? As I understand it, for the Prescription to begin to run, there must first be a resolution to the fundamental dispute which, in this case, has hitherto not been entertained by any court of law.”

He discredits the other parties “They have not presented any alternative version. They have not proffered evidence.”

He says the 'offer to purchase' document was not shown to him. “I did not have sight of that document, nor did I sign it. That's a misrepresentation. In a transaction of this nature, there must be a meeting of minds.”

He wants the court to annul this instalment sale agreement entered into in November 2004 and a refund of all instalments paid on the car, plus insurance premiums.

On 24 December 2020 the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed his application for leave to appeal.

In August 2024, he took the matter to the Constitutional Court, where his application for condonation was denied. “Without a hearing,” Ndara contests. Subsequently Ndara lodged an application for rescission on the basis that his section 34 and 39(2) rights had been violated by the Constitutional Court. Prescription raises a constitutional issue therefore it must be adjudicated in an open court.

The matter is now back at the apex court. “This is a travesty of justice,” Ndara concludes.

The Star