One April morning in 2019, Thuli Nagel’s 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLC 220d broke down on Lydenburg Road in Mpumalanga. She likely believed that calling for assistance would be the most difficult part. A tow truck arrived. The car was delivered to Garden City Motors, a Mercedes-Benz dealership. She anticipated a fix. Instead, a seven-year legal battle ensued, involving two courtrooms, a retired magistrate, and a crucial witness who called in from Germany.
As these things go, Nagel’s assertion is simple. After the repairs, she looked at her car and thought it was in worse shape than when she had given it to someone. She asked an impartial expert for a second opinion. According to reports, that expert, a man by the name of Faltermeier, verified her suspicions. She returned to the dealership to ask for reimbursement. The dealership denied responsibility and declined to make the payment. She was forced to file a lawsuit as a result.
In August 2020, she filed a claim for about R400,000 at the Mbombela Regional Court. The trial began, moving slowly at first, then hardly at all. Both Nagel and Faltermeier had presented their primary evidence by February 2022. Nagel’s cross-examination was finished. However, Garden City Motors requested a postponement to consult when it came time to cross-examine the expert. The court concurred. In the end, that delay proved to be permanent.
It was four years later. The magistrate who was in charge of the case at first retired. And the key expert witness, Faltermeier, moved to Germany. He is no longer able to travel back to South Africa to give an in-person testimony. It’s the kind of issue that seems almost insignificant until you consider the true costs, which include time, money, and fundamental justice for both parties.
Rule 26A of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules, which permits witnesses to testify via audiovisual link in civil proceedings, is a relatively new provision in South African law that Nagel’s legal team used. In order to hear the application, the retired magistrate was called back. He approved it in September 2025. Faltermeier would be permitted to finish his cross-examination on camera from overseas.
That was also rejected by Garden City Motors. The dealership filed an appeal, citing a minimum of twenty-two objections. Among these were worries about keeping an eye on the witness, managing his surroundings, handling documents while he testified, and figuring out if anyone might be encouraging him off-screen. Even though the sheer number of grounds seems to be intended to slow things down rather than resolve them, there is a sense that some of these concerns have actual procedural merit.
The Mpumalanga High Court remained unconvinced. The court removed the appeal from the roll while it was in Mbombela in August 2026. The logic was clear: the magistrate’s order was interlocutory, which means it only addressed the presentation of evidence rather than the outcome of the underlying case. It was not a definitive ruling. The dealership had not shown that it would sustain irreversible damage. The audiovisual evidence could be contested after the trial, not before it had even resumed, if there were legitimate issues with it.
Nagel’s appeal expenses were mandated to be covered by the dealership.
You are more struck by the human reality that lies beneath the legal mechanics in this case. An automobile breaks down. A woman thinks it was given back to her in worse condition. Her opinion is validated by an expert. And yet, seven years later, we are still awaiting the conclusion of a cross-examination. When this will go to trial and whether Nagel will see a resolution at all are still unknown.
Cases like this one raise subtle but important questions about how long it is realistic for the average person to fight a company with resources and legal teams ready to challenge every step of the legal process. Nagel may ultimately prevail in the Garden City Motors compensation dispute, or it may not. However, it is important to consider how long the road will take to get there.
