South Africa Case Law

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

Linatsha v Experian Credit Bureau and Another (NCT2/90335/2023/141(1)(b))

Linatsha v Experian Credit Bureau and Another (NCT2/90335/2023/141(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 53 (14 November 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/290335/2023/141(1)(b)

Judges

S Hockey, M Peenze, CJ Ntsoane

The Tribunal held that Nedbank failed to notify the consumer 20 business days before reporting adverse information, and declared the conduct prohibited.

• Adverse Credit Listing
• Notification Requirements
• National Credit Act
• Prohibited Conduct
• Adverse-credit-listing
• Consumer-credit-notice

Hosken Consolidated Investments Limited and Another v Competition Commission (DC0155Aug17)

Hosken Consolidated Investments Limited and Another v Competition Commission (DC0155Aug17) [2017] ZACT 63; [2017] 2 CPLR 865 (CT) (29 September 2017)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

DC0155Aug17

Judges

Y Carrim, AW Wessels, E Daniels

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order regarding the notifiability of the proposed transaction was not triggered because the applicants had not notified the transaction to the Commission. The Commission's advisory opinion was non-binding and did not constitute a decision or a live dispute requiring Tribunal intervention. The Tribunal emphasized that notification is a jurisdictional prerequisite for its involvement and that alternative remedies exist for the applicants, including notification under protest and further engagement with the Commission. The urgency c…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Declaratory Relief
• Notification Requirements
• Public Interest Considerations

Mamadini No v Mosena and Others (LCC 110/2008)

Mamadini No v Mosena and Others (LCC 110/2008) [2011] ZALCC 6 (1 January 2011)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 110/2008

Judges

Loots, Gildenhuys

The Land Claims Court postponed an unopposed application under section 6(3) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act because proof of statutory notification to the land owner was missing.

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Interdict
• Notification Requirements
• Unopposed Motion
• Restoration-of-land-rights
• Notification-requirements

Senatle v CEO of the South African Social Security Agency (1471/08)

Senatle v CEO of the South African Social Security Agency (1471/08) [2009] ZANWHC 11 (30 April 2009)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1471/08

Judge

J.H.F. Pistor

The court held that SASSA failed to comply with its statutory duty to properly inform the applicant of the outcome and reasons for refusal of his disability grant application. The mere sending of a notice by ordinary post does not satisfy the requirement to 'inform' as required by the relevant regulations, which demand actual receipt and understanding by the applicant. The court found that SASSA did not provide adequate notification or reasons within the prescribed time frames, and the applicant was entitled to approach the court for relief. However, since the applicant was eventually informe…

Source excerpt

• Social Assistance
• Statutory Interpretation
• Notification Requirements
• Condonation Of Delay
• Costs Award

Standard Corporate and Merchant Bank (a division of the Standard Bank of South Africa Limited) and Prochem (Pty) Ltd (34/LM/Jun01)

Standard Corporate and Merchant Bank (a division of the Standard Bank of South Africa Limited) and Prochem (Pty) Ltd (34/LM/Jun01) [2001] ZACT 30 (30 July 2001)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

34/LM/Jun01

Judges

NM Manoim, D Terblanche, U Bhoola

The Competition Tribunal approved SCMB’s acquisition of Prochem unconditionally, finding no horizontal or vertical competition concerns and no adverse public interest effects.

• Large Merger Review
• Change Of Control
• Horizontal And Vertical Effects
• Public Interest
• Notification Requirements
• Large-merger-review