Mpumalanga woman seeks R400,000 after Mercedes returned in worse condition

A Mpumalanga woman has launched legal action seeking about R400,000 after alleging her Mercedes-Benz GLC 220d was returned to her in a worse condition following a tow for repairs.

Breakdown and repairs

According to the judgment in the case, the woman was driving her 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLC 220d along Lydenburg Road in Mpumalanga in April 2019 when the vehicle broke down. She contacted roadside assistance and the vehicle was towed to Garden City Motors, a dealership that specialises in Mercedes-Benz models, for repairs.

Alleged deterioration and expert opinion

When the woman later examined the vehicle, she believed its condition was worse than when she had handed it over for repairs. She obtained a second opinion from experts, who reportedly confirmed her concerns. She then demanded compensation from the dealership, which disputed liability.

Legal proceedings and evidence

The woman instituted proceedings in the Mbombela Regional Court in August 2020, seeking roughly R400,000. The matter proceeded to trial. The woman and her expert witness, Mr Faltermeier, gave evidence in February 2022, but the expert’s cross-examination had not taken place when the company requested a postponement so it could consult before cross-examining him.

After a lengthy delay the expert had not returned to court. The expert had relocated to Germany and was unable to return to South Africa to testify in person. The woman applied under Rule 26A of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules for permission for the expert to testify by audiovisual link. The dealership opposed the application, but the magistrate granted permission in September 2025 for the expert to give evidence remotely.

Appeal and court ruling

The dealership launched an appeal against the magistrate’s decision, raising 22 grounds of appeal. Among its arguments were that the woman had not shown the expert would be unavailable to testify in person at a future trial date and that remote testimony could prejudice the company’s ability to cross-examine the witness effectively. The company said concerns included the ability to observe the witness, control his environment, manage documents and detect possible prompting. The company also argued that allowing the expert to complete his testimony remotely would create an unfair split because the expert had already given evidence in person.

The appeal court found the magistrate’s order permitting audiovisual testimony was interlocutory and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute. The court said the order only concerned the manner in which part of the expert’s evidence would be presented. It also found the company had not shown it would suffer irreparable harm if the issue were challenged after trial, and noted that an appeal court could address the admissibility of audiovisual evidence at a later stage if necessary.

The appeal was struck from the roll and the dealership was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Where the case stands

The proceedings began with the vehicle’s breakdown in April 2019 and the R400,000 claim was launched in August 2020. Key procedural events include testimony in February 2022, the magistrate’s permission for remote testimony in September 2025, and the appeal being struck from the roll.