Williams v Cell C Ltd (NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 12 (11 February 2025)

Williams v Cell C Ltd (NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 12 (11 February 2025)

The Tribunal found that clause 2 of the respondent's terms and conditions was ambiguous and misleading, failing to clearly distinguish between delays in imposing limits and delays in recording usage. The respondent's agent confirmed the limit was set before the applicant's trip, justifying her expectation that charges would not exceed R3 785.00. The respondent's subsequent conduct and terms attempted to limit liability and override statutory obligations, contravening sections 4(4)(a), 4(5)(b), 54(1)(b), 51(1)(b)(i)-(iii), and 48(1)(a)(i)-(ii), (c)(iii) of the CPA. The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to rely on the set limit and should not have been charged above it. The...

Citation
[2025] ZANCT 12
Parties
Applicant: Julie Williams; Respondent: Cell C Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2025
Case Number
NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Application for Redress Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is found to have contravened multiple sections of the Consumer Protection Act and is ordered to refund the applicant, pay an administrative fine, and pay costs.
Judges
C Sassman, S Hockey, C Ntsoane
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Unfair Contract Terms, Misleading Conduct, Administrative Fine, Refund Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Unfair Contract Terms Misleading Conduct Administrative Fine Refund Order

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 6 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Williams

Applicant

Cell C Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Application for Redress Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's terms and conditions regarding international roaming limits are ambiguous and misleading under the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct in charging the applicant above the agreed limit constitutes prohibited conduct under the CPA.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's terms and conditions unlawfully limit or waive statutory obligations and consumer rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that clause 2 of the respondent's terms and conditions was ambiguous and misleading, failing to clearly distinguish between delays in imposing limits and delays in recording usage. The respondent's agent confirmed the limit was set before the applicant's trip, justifying her expectation that charges would not exceed R3 785.00. The respondent's subsequent conduct and terms attempted to limit liability and override statutory obligations, contravening sections 4(4)(a), 4(5)(b), 54(1)(b), 51(1)(b)(i)-(iii), and 48(1)(a)(i)-(ii), (c)(iii) of the CPA. The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to rely on the set limit and should not have been charged above it. The...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is found to have contravened multiple sections of the Consumer Protection Act and is ordered to refund the applicant, pay an administrative fine, and pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent has contravened sections 4(4)(a); 4(5)(b); 48(1)(a)(i)(ii) and c(iii); 54(1)(b); 51(1)(b)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the CPA.
  • The contraventions are declared prohibited conduct in terms of section 150(a) of the NCA.