Durban small claims court denies R950 refund claim over washing-machine leak repair

The Small claims court in Durban denied Nandi Cele’s claim against Warren Jacobs for repayment of a R950 washing-machine repair fee, finding that she had not proved the agreed repair was unsuccessful. It also denied her requests for compensation for worry and legal fees because no specific loss or amount was established.

No payment was ordered from either party to the other. The court made no finding that Jacobs had offered a free return inspection or that Cele had refused one, and did not rely on the alleged refusal to deny relief.

The paid invoice established the R950 payment and described the work as repairing a washing-machine leak by replacing the inlet hose. The court found that this description was broader than hose replacement alone, but the invoice did not record testing or guarantee a particular result. It therefore did not establish whether the repair succeeded.

Cele’s account that water appeared underneath the machine the next day was relevant evidence of a direct observation. However, the WhatsApp messages she described were not presented at the hearing, leaving their contents, timing and context unverified. No other evidence connected the later water to defective hose work or a failure of the agreed repair.

Applying the supplied burden-of-proof rule, the court held that Cele, as the party seeking relief, had to establish the failure for which she sought repayment. The supplied consumer-promises rule required specific promises about quality and deliverables to be honoured, but the timing of the water’s appearance alone did not prove non-performance.

The court separately considered the supplied rule allowing it to weigh whether a provider had a fair opportunity to inspect or correct a reported problem. Neither the inspection offer nor the alleged refusal was independently established. That uncertainty could not be used against Cele, but it also did not fill the gap in proof that the repair failed.

The additional claims lacked an identified legal expense, a specific amount or evidence of a separate loss. A general reference to invoices or receipts was insufficient to support compensation under the supplied rules requiring proof and a remedy proportionate to established harm.

Cele’s side submitted that she had paid to have the leak fixed and that water underneath the machine the following day showed the work was incomplete. It relied on the paid invoice and described WhatsApp messages said to record the repair request, the agreed price, the next-morning complaint and a free inspection offer.

Jacobs’ side argued that the invoice recorded payment and hose replacement, but did not establish the cause of any later water. Although Jacobs initially said Cele declined a free inspection, his side acknowledged the absence of independent proof and did not ask the court to treat the offer or refusal as established.

Jacobs opposed the refund and additional compensation as unsupported. His side also accepted that the invoice did not expressly restrict the job to replacing one component.

Cele hired Jacobs to address water pooling during a wash and paid the agreed R950 fee. She said another puddle appeared after the repair and that she reported it the next morning, although she did not recall the exact calendar dates.

The outcome turns on the evidence presented, rather than a finding that the repair conclusively worked. The judgment expressly leaves open what the unproduced messages might have shown, while denying all requested relief on the available record.