Defective Tyre, Deflected Blame: Consumer Turns to COFEK After XpressFit Burst Fails Within 12 Hours

A consumer has petitioned the Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK) to intervene in a dispute with XpressFit, a subsidiary of AutoXpress, after a newly purchased Sailun 215/45R17 tyre burst less than 12 hours after it was bought and fitted.

According to the complaint, the tyre failed on the same route and under the same road conditions the vehicle had routinely travelled without incident — a detail the complainant says undercuts XpressFit's explanation for the failure.

When the matter was reported, the response from XpressFit followed a familiar script: the company maintained, across several WhatsApp exchanges and phone calls, that its products carry no defects, and instead placed the blame squarely on the consumer.

This came despite a tyre that had barely completed half a day in service before failing.

The consumer returned the defective tyre within 24 hours, seeking a proper assessment and resolution.

What followed was not redress but an additional cost: rather than replacing the tyre or investigating the failure, XpressFit required the consumer to purchase a second tyre simply to continue the journey.

A request to escalate the matter to management was rebuffed — management, the consumer was told, was unavailable.

A follow-up attempt on 20th June 2026 to revive the complaint went unanswered. Weeks of conversations, follow-ups and requests for accountability have yielded nothing. The Pattern Is the Problem

What makes this case notable is not simply the tyre failure — mechanical faults happen — but the sequence that followed it.

A product fails almost immediately after purchase. The seller declares, without an apparent independent assessment, that the fault lies with the customer.

The customer is then compelled to spend more money to remain mobile, effectively subsidising the seller's refusal to investigate its own product. And when the customer seeks to escalate, the door to management simply closes.

This is precisely the kind of asymmetry consumer protection law exists to correct. Under the Consumer Protection Act, consumers are entitled to goods that are free from defects and fit for the purpose for which they are sold.

A tyre bursting within 12 hours of fitting, under normal driving conditions, is not on its face consistent with a defect-free product — and the burden of demonstrating otherwise should not be discharged by a phone call asserting innocence. Equally troubling is the absence of any documented technical assessment. Attributing tyre failure to driver conduct — road hazards, underinflation, overloading — is a legitimate diagnostic possibility, but it is a conclusion that requires inspection, not assumption.

A company that skips this step, while simultaneously declining to make management available, invites the inference that the "no defect" position is a commercial reflex rather than a technical finding.

What the Consumer Has on Record

The complainant has retained purchase documentation, photographic evidence of the failed tyre, and a written record of the WhatsApp exchanges with XpressFit staff. Details of the phone conversations are also available.

This is, in other words, a complaint built on a paper trail — not a bare allegation — and one that should be straightforward for any competent independent reviewer to assess on the merits. The remedy being sought is neither punitive nor unusual: a replacement of the defective tyre, or a refund, calibrated to whatever an independent assessment establishes.

Beyond One Tyre

Tyres are safety-critical components. A blowout is not a cosmetic inconvenience; it is a hazard to the driver, passengers and other road users. When a seller's default posture toward a rapid, unexplained tyre failure is denial rather than diagnosis, the risk is not confined to one disgruntled customer — it is a signal about how the company treats safety complaints generally. COFEK's intervention now turns on securing what XpressFit apparently would not provide on its own: an independent, documented assessment of why a brand-new tyre failed in under half a day, and a resolution that reflects whatever that assessment finds — rather than one dictated by a company unwilling to put its management on the phone.