South Africa Case Law

Swanepoel v Depuy International Limited (20758/2013)

Swanepoel v Depuy International Limited (20758/2013) [2025] ZAWCHC 9 (21 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20758/2013

Judge

Wille

The court found that the defendant, through its conduct in implementing the recall of the defective hip replacement system in South Africa, appointing local agents and attorneys, and accepting service of summons locally, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Western Cape High Court. The action has a real and substantial connection to the forum, as the alleged delict occurred within its territorial jurisdiction and the harm manifested locally. The court held that the attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction is no longer an absolute requirement where the summons was served locally…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendant
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Product Liability
• Attachment Of Property
• Development Of Common Law

Pieterse and Others v Organic Synthesis (Pty) Ltd and Another (61861/2017)

Pieterse and Others v Organic Synthesis (Pty) Ltd and Another (61861/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1195 (14 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61861/2017

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court held that section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act does not require plaintiffs to exhaust alternative statutory remedies before approaching the court for damages based on personal injury caused by defective goods. The remedies listed in section 69(a)-(c) are not appropriate or sufficient for claims of this nature, as only the court is empowered under section 61(6) to adjudicate such claims and determine damages. The court found that the statutory framework does not create a mandatory hierarchy of remedies and that the right of access to courts should not be excluded by procedural r…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Product Liability
• Personal Injury
• Exhaustion Of Remedies
• Strict Liability

Dumas v Concord Group CC (NCT/324897/2024/148(1))

Dumas v Concord Group CC (NCT/324897/2024/148(1)) [2024] ZANCT 38 (26 September 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/324897/2024/148(1)

Judges

Z Ntuli, MC Peenze, S Mthembu

The Tribunal granted condonation for a late leave-to-refer application on a continuing-product complaint, but held an older 2013 complaint was time-barred.

• Condonation
• Late Filing
• Consumer Protection Act
• Product Liability
• Statutory Time Bar
• Leave To Refer

Vhulahani and Others v Steel King Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (340/2020)

Vhulahani and Others v Steel King Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (340/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 176 (20 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

340/2020

Judge

T Bokako

The court found that the plaintiffs' application for postponement was made with bona fide intentions and was not intended to delay the proceedings. Given the complexity of the matter and the need for expert evidence, it is in the interests of justice to grant the postponement to allow the plaintiffs to properly prepare their case. The plaintiffs' conduct, while below par in preparation, did not amount to vexatious or reprehensible behavior warranting a punitive costs order. However, fairness dictates that the plaintiffs bear the costs occasioned by the postponement, including costs for the de…

Source excerpt

• Postponement Of Trial
• Expert Evidence
• Costs Order
• Consumer Protection Act
• Product Liability
• Loss Of Support

Valentine v Audio Vision Canal Walk (Pty) Ltd t/a Samsung Store (NCT/244655/2022/75(1)(b))

Valentine v Audio Vision Canal Walk (Pty) Ltd t/a Samsung Store (NCT/244655/2022/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 39 (16 August 2023)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/244655/2022/75(1)(b)

Judges

Z Ntuli, C Sassman, CJ Ntsoane

The Tribunal confirmed a settlement after a TV was damaged during the applicant’s own unpacking and installation. No costs order was made.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Consent Order
• Settlement Agreement
• Product Liability
• Plain Language Information
• Consumer-protection

Assessment: Faulty Product (201606-008042)

Assessment: Faulty Product (201606-008042) [2017] ZACGSO 2 (20 April 2017)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201606-008042

The Ombud found no supplier liability for injuries allegedly caused by a lawnmower, holding the complainant used it contrary to clear warnings and did not prove a defect.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Product Liability
• Adequate Instructions
• Manufacturer Liability
• Consumer-protection-act

Assessment: Safety - Carpet Cleaner (201702-0011917)

Assessment: Safety - Carpet Cleaner (201702-0011917) [2017] ZACGSO 6 (4 April 2017)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201702-0011917

The Ombud dismissed a consumer complaint under the CPA, finding no proof that rodent contamination existed when the product was supplied or caused the illness.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Product Liability
• Causation
• Quantification Of Damages
• Consumer-protection-act
• Product-liability

Assessment: Food Poisoning (201612/0011144)

Assessment: Food Poisoning (201612/0011144) [2017] ZACGSO 4 (20 February 2017)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201612/0011144

The Ombud dismissed a complaint about carpet-cleaning chemicals, finding no proof that the product was defective or caused the complainant’s breathing problems.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Quality Of Service
• Product Liability
• Causation
• Damages
• Consumer-protection

Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Bekker (322/16)

Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Bekker (322/16) [2016] ZAECGHC 103 (20 September 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

322/16

Judges

Griffiths, Bloem, Mbenenge

Appeal dismissed after the court upheld findings that livestock deaths were caused by phosphine-contaminated feed supplied by the appellant.

• Actio Ex Empto
• Latent Defect Liability
• Product Liability
• Expert Evidence
• Balance Of Probabilities
• Latent-defect-liability

Injury Caused by Defective Sandals (201503-0183)

Injury Caused by Defective Sandals (201503-0183) [2015] ZACGSO 3 (18 August 2015)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201503-0183

Judge

Bonita Hughes

The Ombud found no proof that the sandals were defective or caused the complainant’s fall, so no recommendation was made in her favour.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Product Liability
• Defective Goods
• Burden Of Proof
• Consumer-protection-act
• Product-liability