South Africa Case Law

Bokaba v Muzdalifah Investment CC trading as Bargain Motors (Pristine Motors) (NCT/326277/2024/75(1)(b))

Bokaba v Muzdalifah Investment CC trading as Bargain Motors (Pristine Motors) (NCT/326277/2024/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 22 (8 April 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/326277/2024/75(1)(b)

Judges

A Potwana, S Mbhele, C Sassman

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that the vehicle remained defective after the respondent’s repairs. The independent diagnosis confirmed the vehicle was in good working order. The Tribunal applied the Plascon-Evans rule and found no basis to reject the respondent’s version. The remaining noise did not constitute a defect under the CPA, as clarified by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicant’s requests for reimbursement of expenses, payment of the auction shortfall, and a letter to Standard Bank Limited lacked legal and factual basis, as the respondent was not party to…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Purchase Agreement Cancellation
• Credit Bureau Listing

Makhafola v Wiese and Another (27518/2021)

Makhafola v Wiese and Another (27518/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 238 (12 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27518/2021

Judge

Bam

The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants wrongfully and intentionally published defamatory information concerning him. The evidence established that the judgment was granted against Stoltz Inc., not the plaintiff, and the erroneous listing on the plaintiff’s credit profile resulted from a third-party error. The defendants acted promptly to correct the error once notified, and there was no evidence of malicious intent. The plaintiff did not prove that the publication caused him harm, nor did he plead or prove the elements required for special damages under an aquilian action. Constitu…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Credit Bureau Listing
• Aquilian Action
• Malicious Intent
• Special Damages
• Constitutional Damages

Thuketana v Transunion Credit Bureau (Pty) Ltd (NCT/326495/2024/141(1)(b))

Thuketana v Transunion Credit Bureau (Pty) Ltd (NCT/326495/2024/141(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 72 (3 December 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/326495/2024/141(1)(b)

Judges

Z Ntuli, C Sassman, CJ Ntsoane

The Tribunal found that the obligation to notify the applicant before listing the SARS judgment rests with SARS as the source of information, not with the respondent credit bureau. The respondent provided credible evidence supporting the listing, namely the SARS judgment, and took reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information. The 62-cent discrepancy in the listed amount was deemed trivial and did not materially misrepresent the applicant's credit status. The Tribunal applied the de minimis non curat lex principle, holding that such a minor discrepancy does not warrant judicial i…

Source excerpt

• Credit Bureau Listing
• Accuracy Of Consumer Credit Information
• Notification Requirements
• De Minimis Non Curat Lex
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal

Van Staden v Experian (Pty) Ltd and Another (NCT/226905/2022/141(1)(b))

Van Staden v Experian (Pty) Ltd and Another (NCT/226905/2022/141(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 66 (5 December 2022)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/226905/2022/141(1)(b)

Judges

CJ Ntsoane, A Potwana, N Maseti

The Tribunal refused leave to refer a credit-bureau complaint because the alleged conduct occurred in 2007 and the complaint was filed out of time under section 166 of the NCA.

• Credit Bureau Listing
• Time Bar
• Leave To Refer
• National Credit Act
• Credit-bureau-listing
• National-credit-act

Kalefya v South African Fraud Prevention Services and Another (19492/20)

Kalefya v South African Fraud Prevention Services and Another (19492/20) [2022] ZAGPJHC 367 (12 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19492/20

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal CSP

The court found that the listing of the applicant by the first respondent was lawful and did not infringe any constitutional or statutory rights of the applicant. The second respondent acted in accordance with its statutory obligations under the National Credit Act and the SAFPS code of practice. There was no legal requirement to notify the applicant prior to listing for fraud, nor to involve him in the investigation. The applicant failed to provide evidence to support his claim that his rights were infringed, and did not pursue available remedies such as approaching the Ombudsman or National…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Credit Bureau Listing
• Fraudulent Documentation
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Procedural Fairness
• Costs Order

National Credit Regulator v Segelaar and Others (NCT/195105/2021/140(1))

National Credit Regulator v Segelaar and Others (NCT/195105/2021/140(1)) [2021] ZANCT 47 (18 October 2021)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/195105/2021/140(1)

Judges

A Potwana, M Peenze, D Terblanche

The Tribunal found a debt counsellor unlawfully listed a consumer as having applied for debt review without any application and ordered removal of the listing.

• National Credit Act
• Debt Counselling
• Prohibited Conduct
• Credit Bureau Listing
• National-credit-act
• Debt-counselling

Khetsekile v Nedbank Limited and Another (2385/2021)

Khetsekile v Nedbank Limited and Another (2385/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 231 (7 October 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2385/2021

Judge

M S Litheko

The court found that the information retained by the second respondent was fraud information, not prescribed adverse information as contemplated by section 72(1)(a) of the National Credit Act. The first respondent was not obliged to advise the applicant before listing his name, and the second respondent was not required to expunge the fraud information after one year. The applicant failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, and the legal position as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal was decisive. The application was dismissed as the applicant did not have the right he clai…

Source excerpt

• Mandatory Interdict
• Credit Bureau Listing
• National Credit Act
• Fraud Information
• Adverse Information Reporting

NCA Billings v Nel (NCT/170270/2020/141(1) NCA)

NCA Billings v Nel (NCT/170270/2020/141(1) NCA) [2021] ZANCT 45 (20 September 2021)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/170270/2020/141(1) NCA

Judges

J Simpson, A Potwana, F Manamela

The Tribunal refused leave to refer a complaint about debt review and credit bureau listing, finding no evidence of prohibited conduct and no basis for direct referral.

• National Credit Act
• Debt Review
• Leave To Refer
• Credit Bureau Listing
• National-credit-act
• Debt-review

Monakedi v Old Mutual Finance and Another (NCT/29037/2015/149(1))

Monakedi v Old Mutual Finance and Another (NCT/29037/2015/149(1)) [2015] ZANCT 40 (15 December 2015)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/29037/2015/149(1)

Judges

T Woker, B Dumisa, H Devraj

The Tribunal refused interim relief sought to remove an adverse credit bureau listing, finding no evidence of imminent prejudice or irreparable harm under section 149(1) of the NCA.

• Interim Relief
• Reckless Lending
• Credit Bureau Listing
• Default Order
• National Credit Act
• Interim-relief

Van Rooyen v Vodacom Service Provider Company Ltd (Pty) (3652/2010)

Van Rooyen v Vodacom Service Provider Company Ltd (Pty) (3652/2010) [2011] ZAECPEHC 14 (24 March 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3652/2010

Judge

Andrews

Default judgment in defamation claim over a credit bureau listing; the court ordered removal of the listing, damages of R50,000, and costs.

• Defamation
• Credit Bureau Listing
• Damages Quantification
• Wrongful Publication
• Credit-bureau-listing
• Damages-quantification