South Africa Case Law

Khumalo v RZT Zelpy 4300 (Pty) Ltd t/a Automax George and Another (NCT-328494-2024-75(1)(b))

Khumalo v RZT Zelpy 4300 (Pty) Ltd t/a Automax George and Another (NCT-328494-2024-75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 34 (18 June 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT-328494-2024-75(1)(b)

Judges

MC Peenze, A Potwana, CJ Ntsoane

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was sold with tyres that were significantly aged and defective, as confirmed by an expert report. The suppliers failed to disclose the tyres' condition, and reliance solely on a roadworthiness certificate was inadequate for CPA compliance. The defective tyre rendered the vehicle unsafe and unsuitable for its intended purpose, infringing the applicant's right to safe, good quality goods under section 55(2) of the CPA. The Tribunal held that a defective tyre is a serious defect, making the entire vehicle defective. However, the Tribunal interpreted section 56…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Implied Warranty Of Quality
• Prohibited Conduct
• Defective Goods
• Refund Entitlement

National Consumer Commission v Econocom 357 (Pty) Ltd) t/a Leather Gallery (NCT/388029/2025/73(2)(b))

National Consumer Commission v Econocom 357 (Pty) Ltd) t/a Leather Gallery (NCT/388029/2025/73(2)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 37 (18 June 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/388029/2025/73(2)(b)

Judges

Z Ntuli, M Peenze, S Hockey

The Tribunal found a CPA contravention only in Van Heerden’s complaint, ordered a refund, and declined an administrative fine. Noise complaints were not material defects.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Prohibited Conduct
• Defective Goods
• Refund Order
• Material Defect
• Consumer-protection-act

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

Millstock Cars (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission and Another (NCT/371633/2025/101(1))

Millstock Cars (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission and Another (NCT/371633/2025/101(1)) [2025] ZANCT 27 (6 April 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/371633/2025/101(1)

Judges

S Hockey, C Sassman, CJ Ntsoane

The Tribunal cancelled a compliance notice after finding it was based on factual errors about a Ferrari’s defect and that only a faulty sensor was shown.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice Review
• Supplier Liability
• Defective Goods
• Administrative Action
• Consumer-protection-act

Agvision CC t/a MMA Dealership v Fayers (AR158/2023)

Agvision CC t/a MMA Dealership v Fayers (AR158/2023) [2025] ZAKZPHC 37 (28 March 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR158/2023

Judges

Olsen, Mathenjwa

High Court appeal over a sold-as-is motor vehicle held that the magistrates’ repair award could not stand; the appeal was upheld and the lower judgment set aside.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Sale Of Goods
• Remedies For Breach
• Exhaustion Of Remedies
• Consumer-protection

Du Toit v Engines for Africa (Denver) (Pty) Ltd (NCT/343426/2024/75(1)(b))

Du Toit v Engines for Africa (Denver) (Pty) Ltd (NCT/343426/2024/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 10 (31 January 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/343426/2024/75(1)(b)

Judges

S Hockey, A Potwana, P Manzi-Ntshingila

The Tribunal held that a replacement engine was defective and ordered the supplier to refund the purchase price, with the return of the engine at the supplier’s cost.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Refund Claim
• Prohibited Conduct
• Consumer-protection
• Defective-goods

De Heus (Pty) Ltd v RG Keeny t/a Raynel Ranches (324/2014)

De Heus (Pty) Ltd v RG Keeny t/a Raynel Ranches (324/2014) [2024] ZANWHC 305 (18 December 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

324/2014

Judge

Dibetso-Bodibe

The court held that, in light of the pleadings and the nature of the dispute, the defendant bears the onus of proof and the duty to begin on the issue of the alleged defectiveness of the chicken feed supplied by the plaintiff. This is because the assertion of defectiveness is a negative allegation peculiar to the defendant, who is best placed to adduce evidence on the matter. Only after the defendant has presented evidence on defectiveness does the onus shift to the plaintiff to prove breach of contract and indebtedness. The allocation of the evidential burden is guided by considerations of f…

Source excerpt

• Onus Of Proof
• Burden Of Evidence
• Breach Of Contract
• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods

Auto Extreme CC v Lourens (A72/2024)

Auto Extreme CC v Lourens (A72/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1101 (25 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A72/2024

Judges

Moshoana, Lesufi

The court found that the respondent failed to prove the existence of a material defect in the motor vehicle as required by section 53 of the Consumer Protection Act. The defects alleged—steering concerns, air-conditioning issues, and overheating—were either remedied or not shown to substantially impair the utility or effectiveness of the vehicle. The vehicle was driven for a considerable distance after delivery, and no evidence established that it was rendered less acceptable than reasonably expected. The Tribunal erred in accepting speculative findings regarding the nature and materiality of…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Onus Of Proof
• Refund Entitlement
• Statutory Appeal

Vaders v Samsung Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd (NCT/315258/2024/75(1)(b))

Vaders v Samsung Electronics SA (Pty) Ltd (NCT/315258/2024/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 46 (19 October 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/315258/2024/75(1)(b)

Judges

M Peenze, A Potwana, P Manzi-Ntshingila

The Tribunal dismissed a consumer claim over a refrigerator-freezer, finding no proven defect and holding that temperature fluctuation during load shedding did not of itself justify replacement or refund.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Implied Warranty Of Quality
• Defective Goods
• Burden Of Proof
• Interpretation Of Product Specifications
• Consumer-protection-act

Barnard v Auto I Paarl (Pty) Ltd t.a Auto Investments Paarl (NCT/302182/2023/75(1)(b))

Barnard v Auto I Paarl (Pty) Ltd t.a Auto Investments Paarl (NCT/302182/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 65 (7 October 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/302182/2023/75(1)(b)

Judges

S Hockey, A Potwana, N Maseti

The Tribunal dismissed a consumer’s claim for a refund over a used vehicle, finding she did not return it for refund or replacement under the CPA.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Refund Claim
• Supplier Liability
• Consumer-protection-act
• Defective-goods