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

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

Davids and Another v M & Y Tombstones and Granite Works (Pty) Ltd (NCT/267544/2023/75(1)(b))

Davids and Another v M & Y Tombstones and Granite Works (Pty) Ltd (NCT/267544/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 43 (27 September 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/267544/2023/75(1)(b)

Judges

C Sassman, N Maseti, MC Peenze

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide the contracted service in a manner and quality that consumers are generally entitled to expect, as required by section 54(1)(b)-(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent delivered a single-tier tombstone made with inferior materials instead of the agreed four-tier granite tombstone, and the structure has deteriorated rapidly. The respondent did not oppose the application, and under Rule 13(5), the applicants' allegations are deemed admitted. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants suffered financial and emotional prejudice a…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Quality Of Goods And Services
• Supplier Liability
• Refund Entitlement

Martin v Strauss and Reynders CC t.a Motortland East London (NCT/122211/2018/75(1)(b))

Martin v Strauss and Reynders CC t.a Motortland East London (NCT/122211/2018/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 97 (27 June 2019)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/122211/2018/75(1)(b)

Judge

H Devraj

The Tribunal granted leave to refer a consumer complaint about a defective vehicle and cost-of-usage calculation, finding reasonable prospects of success and substantial importance.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Leave To Refer
• Defective Goods
• Cost Of Usage
• Refund Entitlement
• Consumer-protection

Assessment: Demand for quality service (201608-0009153)

Assessment: Demand for quality service (201608-0009153) [2017] ZACGSO 3 (20 April 2017)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201608-0009153

Judge

M F Mbedzi

The Ombud found the supplier’s R3,500 compensation offer for defects in a holiday house rental to be fair and reasonable under the Consumer Protection Act.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Quality Of Service
• Refund Entitlement
• Burden Of Proof
• Contractual Performance
• Consumer-protection-act

Suitcase zipper: not a material defect. Supplier entitled to repair (201443261013)

Suitcase zipper: not a material defect. Supplier entitled to repair (201443261013) [2014] ZACGSO 9 (25 April 2014)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201443261013

Judge

N Melville

A suitcase zipper pull broke after transport, but the adjudicator held the defect was not material and the supplier was entitled to repair the bag.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Material Defect
• Refund Entitlement
• Repair Rights
• Consumer-protection-act
• Material-defect

Defect material; Consumer entitled to refund (2013611175)

Defect material; Consumer entitled to refund (2013611175) [2013] ZACGSO 4 (16 August 2013)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

2013611175

Judge

N Melville

A consumer goods ombud held that repeated unsuccessful repairs showed a bedroom suite defect was material, entitling the consumer to cancel and receive a refund.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Material Defect
• Refund Entitlement
• Warranty
• Contract Cancellation
• Consumer-protection