South Africa Case Law

National Consumer Commission v De Jager N.O and Another (NCT/376591/2025/73(2)(b))

National Consumer Commission v De Jager N.O and Another (NCT/376591/2025/73(2)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 36 (3 June 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/376591/2025/73(2)(b)

Judges

C Sassman, CJ Ntsoane, MC Peenze

The Tribunal found that the respondents, acting as trustees of the Shabach Trust trading as Droom Troue, intentionally misled consumers by advertising a competition that did not exist and requiring payment of undisclosed fees to claim a prize. The advertisements failed to disclose that participation was for a reality show, and the MOUs signed by complainants referred to them as winners of a competition. The Tribunal held that the respondents' conduct was unconscionable, misleading, and deceptive, contravening sections 4(5)(b) and 36(2)(a)(i) of the CPA. Although no promotional competition was…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Misleading Advertising
• Prohibited Conduct
• Administrative Fine
• Refund Of Payments

Culwick v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (NCT/316719/2024/75(1)(b))

Culwick v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (NCT/316719/2024/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 60 (13 November 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/316719/2024/75(1)(b)

Judges

M Peenze, CJ Ntsoane, S Hockey

The Tribunal found Vodacom misled the applicant about a R90 phone deal, contravened the CPA, ordered a refund of R11,622.08, and reinstated the original agreement.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Misleading Advertising
• Unconscionable Conduct
• Direct Marketing
• Refund Claim
• Contract Cancellation

Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Another (20055/2020)

Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Another (20055/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 371 (21 December 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20055/2020

Judge

Fisher

The High Court dismissed a review of ARB rulings on Dettol soap packaging, upholding findings that the phrase “illness-causing germs” implied medicinal properties.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Advertising Code Enforcement
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Self Regulation In Industry
• Res Judicata
• Misleading Advertising

National Consumer Commission v Lynx Chemicals CC (NCT/127619/2019/57(1))

National Consumer Commission v Lynx Chemicals CC (NCT/127619/2019/57(1)) [2020] ZANCT 8 (24 September 2020)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/127619/2019/57(1)

Judges

J Simpson, T Woker, F Manamela

The Tribunal found that ABC Financial Services repeatedly contravened the National Credit Act by failing to file statutory returns, conducting improper affordability assessments, and charging fees and interest above the permissible limits. The Tribunal rejected ABC's argument that 'repeated contraventions' require prior findings, holding that multiple breaches suffice. The Tribunal determined that the use of 'instant loans' in advertising created reasonable suspicion but was not unlawful under current regulations. The procedural error in appointment certificates was found to be administrative…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Reckless Lending
• Affordability Assessment
• Administrative Fine
• Statutory Reporting
• Misleading Advertising

Recommendation: Error in Price: Third Party (201703-0012601)

Recommendation: Error in Price: Third Party (201703-0012601) [2017] ZACGSO 7 (14 March 2017)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201703-0012601

Judge

N Melville

The supplier is not legally obliged to supply the gazebos at the erroneously advertised price. The advertisement constituted an invitation to treat, not a binding offer. The Consumer Protection Act provides relief for suppliers in cases of obvious and inadvertent pricing errors, provided the error is corrected and consumers are informed. The price discrepancy was so significant that a reasonable person would not have been misled. Multiple orders placed by the complainant further support the conclusion that the error was apparent. There is no basis for holding the supplier vicariously liable f…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Advertised Price Error
• Invitation To Treat
• Misleading Advertising

Mosaic Connections CC v First National Bank Limited (NCT/3294/2015/137(3))

Mosaic Connections CC v First National Bank Limited (NCT/3294/2015/137(3)) [2016] ZANCT 16 (10 May 2016)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/3294/2015/137(3)

Judges

J Simpson, B Dumisa, F Sibanda

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute about FNB’s monthly account fee on a cheque account and dismissed the application.

• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Credit Agreement Definition
• Bait Marketing
• Misleading Advertising
• Contractual Variation
• Tribunal-jurisdiction

Misleading advertising (201512-0005306)

Misleading advertising (201512-0005306) [2016] ZACGSO 6 (19 April 2016)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201512-0005306

Judge

N Melville

The Ombud found the supplier’s debit-order discount advertising unclear and recommended the complainant receive the 5% 2016 discount and remain eligible for 2017.

• Misleading Advertising
• Consumer Protection
• Contractual Terms
• Discount Entitlement
• Misleading-advertising
• Consumer-protection

Dispute Identification (201503-0232)

Dispute Identification (201503-0232) [2015] ZACGSO 4 (11 May 2015)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201503-0232

Judge

B Hughes

The Ombud held that a mistaken website price for a tool kit did not mislead the complainant, so the supplier was not bound to sell at R199.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Bait Marketing
• Misleading Advertising
• Strict Liability
• Gross Error Test
• Consumer-protection-act

Incorrect price advertised: price not binding (Case 1) (20145261021)

Incorrect price advertised: price not binding (Case 1) (20145261021) [2014] ZACGSO 16 (2 July 2014)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

20145261021

Judge

N Melville

The Ombud found a catalogue price error for a couch was not binding because the gap between the advertised and actual price was too large to mislead a reasonable consumer.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Bait Marketing
• Misleading Advertising
• Invitation To Treat
• Advertised Price Liability
• Consumer-protection-act

Incorrect price advertised: price not binding (Case 2) (20121024315)

Incorrect price advertised: price not binding (Case 2) (20121024315) [2003] ZACGSO 1 (24 June 2003)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

20121024315

Judge

N Melville

An ombud found an advertised drawer-unit price error was not clearly proven, and suggested a बिना prejudice R100 voucher for inconvenience and travel costs.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Advertised Price Error
• Displayed Price
• Misleading Advertising
• Consumer-protection
• Misleading-advertising