Dramat v Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd (NCT/87734/2017/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 54 (14 May 2018)

Dramat v Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd (NCT/87734/2017/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 54 (14 May 2018)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's purchase was made as an investment rather than for the acquisition of physical goods for personal use. Both parties' submissions indicated that the transaction was speculative in nature, with the Applicant seeking future resale value rather than possession of the coins. The Consumer Protection Act does not regulate investment purchases, and the National Consumer Commission had already determined that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and there are no reasonable prospects of success for the Applicant's referral under section 75(1)(b) of the CPA.

Citation
[2018] ZANCT 54
Parties
Applicant: Farieda Dramat; Respondent: Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2018
Case Number
NCT/87734/2017/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint Directly to Tribunal Under S75(1)(b) CPA
Outcome
Application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.
Judges
B. Dumisa
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Leave to Refer, Jurisdiction, Investment Exclusion
Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Leave to Refer Jurisdiction Investment Exclusion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farieda Dramat

Applicant

Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Complaint Directly to Tribunal Under S75(1)(b) CPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act to hear a complaint relating to an investment purchase.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant has reasonable prospects of success in referring the matter to the Tribunal.
  3. 3 Whether the matter is of substantial importance to the Applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's purchase was made as an investment rather than for the acquisition of physical goods for personal use. Both parties' submissions indicated that the transaction was speculative in nature, with the Applicant seeking future resale value rather than possession of the coins. The Consumer Protection Act does not regulate investment purchases, and the National Consumer Commission had already determined that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and there are no reasonable prospects of success for the Applicant's referral under section 75(1)(b) of the CPA.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.

Orders

  • The application for leave to refer the complaint directly to the Tribunal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.