Williams v Cell C Ltd (NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 1 (18 February 2025)

Williams v Cell C Ltd (NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 1 (18 February 2025)

The Tribunal found that the inclusion of section 4(4)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act as a contravention in its original judgment was an obvious error. Section 4(4)(a) is an interpretive provision and does not create a basis for a contravention by a supplier. The Tribunal is empowered under section 165(b) of the National Credit Act to vary its order to correct such errors. Accordingly, the judgment was varied to delete the reference to section 4(4)(a) from the list of contraventions in paragraphs 51 and 61.1. The remaining findings of contravention under sections 4(5)(b), 54(1)(b), 51(1)(b)(i)-(iii), and 48(1)(a)(i)-(ii) and (c)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act remain unaffected.

Citation
[2025] ZANCT 1
Parties
Applicant: Julie Williams; Respondent: Cell C Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Case Number
NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Variation of Judgment
Outcome
The Tribunal's original judgment is varied to delete the reference to section 4(4)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act as a contravention. The amended judgment is attached as Annexure A. No cost order is made.
Judges
C Sassman, S Hocky, C Ntsoane
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Variation of Order, Obvious Error, Contractual Interpretation
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Variation of Order Obvious Error Contractual Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Williams

Applicant

Cell C Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Variation of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's original judgment contained an obvious error by including section 4(4)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act as a contravention.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal is empowered to vary its order to correct the error under section 165(b) of the National Credit Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the inclusion of section 4(4)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act as a contravention in its original judgment was an obvious error. Section 4(4)(a) is an interpretive provision and does not create a basis for a contravention by a supplier. The Tribunal is empowered under section 165(b) of the National Credit Act to vary its order to correct such errors. Accordingly, the judgment was varied to delete the reference to section 4(4)(a) from the list of contraventions in paragraphs 51 and 61.1. The remaining findings of contravention under sections 4(5)(b), 54(1)(b), 51(1)(b)(i)-(iii), and 48(1)(a)(i)-(ii) and (c)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act remain unaffected.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal's original judgment is varied to delete the reference to section 4(4)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act as a contravention. The amended judgment is attached as Annexure A. No cost order is made.

Orders

  • Paragraph 51 of the original judgment is varied to delete the reference to section 4(4)(a) as a contravention.
  • Paragraph 61.1 of the original judgment is varied to delete the reference to section 4(4)(a) as a contravention.