South Africa Case Law

National Consumer Commission v WP Motors Sales (Pty) Ltd t/a WP Motors and Another (NCT/246983/2022/73(2)(b))

National Consumer Commission v WP Motors Sales (Pty) Ltd t/a WP Motors and Another (NCT/246983/2022/73(2)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 11 (17 February 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/246983/2022/73(2)(b)

Judges

N Maseti, Z Ntuli, MC Peenze

The Tribunal found that the first respondent contravened sections 55(2)(b), 55(2)(c), and 56(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by selling a vehicle that suffered serious mechanical defects within three days of delivery. The consumer elected to cancel the agreement and seek a refund, which was communicated clearly and supported by documentary evidence. The first respondent's defence of driver negligence was rejected due to inadmissible hearsay evidence and lack of substantiation. The consumer's acceptance of the repaired vehicle was under economic duress and did not amount to repudiation of…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Prohibited Conduct
• Refund Remedy
• Administrative Penalty
• Hearsay Evidence
• Statutory Warranty

Peter v NTT Motor East London (Pty) Ltd t/a Audi East London (NCT/243451/2022/75(1)(b))

Peter v NTT Motor East London (Pty) Ltd t/a Audi East London (NCT/243451/2022/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 23 (19 July 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/243451/2022/75(1)(b)

Judges

Zodwa Ntuli, Nomfundo Maseti, Selwyn Hockey

The Tribunal found a new vehicle’s brake-servo failure was a material defect and ordered the dealer to refund the full purchase price on return of the car.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Implied Warranty
• Defective Goods
• Prohibited Conduct
• Refund Remedy
• Consumer-protection-act

Gareeb v JD Consumer Electronics and Appliances (Pty) Ltd t/a Incredible Connections - RSA (NCT-294641-2023-Section 75(1)(b))

Gareeb v JD Consumer Electronics and Appliances (Pty) Ltd t/a Incredible Connections - RSA (NCT-294641-2023-Section 75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 7 (8 April 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT-294641-2023-Section 75(1)(b)

Judges

Z Ntuli, S Hockey, Peenze

The Tribunal held that a laptop sold by the respondent was defective, breached CPA standards, and ordered a full refund of R21,999.00.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Refund Remedy
• Default Judgment
• Consumer-protection
• Defective-goods

Platinum Wheels (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission and Another (A261/2021)

Platinum Wheels (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission and Another (A261/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 831 (2 November 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A261/2021

Judges

Retief AJ, Ndlokovane AJ

The court found that the transaction between Platinum Wheels and Mr Links was a supply of goods for consideration in the ordinary course of business, making Platinum Wheels the supplier under the Consumer Protection Act. The defence under section 55(6) did not apply to section 55(2)(c), which guarantees durability for a reasonable period. The implied warranty of quality under section 56 was triggered when the vehicle failed after repairs within the statutory period, obliging Platinum Wheels to refund the purchase price. The Tribunal's refund order was set aside and replaced with an order for…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Implied Warranty Of Quality
• Refund Remedy
• Administrative Fine
• Jurisdictional Enquiry
• Durability Of Goods

De Villiers v Donford (Pty) Ltd t/a BMW Stellenbosch (NCT/189254/2021/75(1)(b) CPA - Rule 34)

De Villiers v Donford (Pty) Ltd t/a BMW Stellenbosch (NCT/189254/2021/75(1)(b) CPA - Rule 34) [2021] ZANCT 53 (2 December 2021)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/189254/2021/75(1)(b) CPA

Judge

J Simpson

The Tribunal refused leave to refer a CPA complaint about an alleged BMW repair defect, finding no clear factual basis or reasonable prospect of success.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Quality Of Service
• Warranty Claims
• Refund Remedy
• Consumer-protection-act
• Quality-of-service

Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wentzel (1272/2019)

Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wentzel (1272/2019) [2021] ZASCA 40; [2021] 3 All SA 98 (SCA) (13 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1272/2019

Judges

Wallis, Saldulker, Zondi, Carelse, Kgoele

The respondent failed to establish entitlement to a refund under s 56(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, as she did not prove that defects persisted or new defects were discovered within three months after the last repair. Renault's evidence that all repairs were completed and no further complaints were received must be accepted, given the disputes of fact and the limitations of motion proceedings. The court a quo erred in awarding a refund of the full purchase price, including finance charges, contrary to the statutory definition of 'price' and without considering deductions for use under s…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Implied Warranty Of Quality
• Refund Remedy
• Motion Proceedings
• Exhaustion Of Remedies

Lazarus and Another v RDB Project Management CC t/a Solid and Another (NCT/36112/2016/75(1)(b))

Lazarus and Another v RDB Project Management CC t/a Solid and Another (NCT/36112/2016/75(1)(b)) [2016] ZANCT 15 (9 June 2016)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/36112/2016/75(1)(b)

Judges

J Simpson, D Terblanche, H Devraj

The Tribunal found a kitchen counter defective after it cracked under normal use, rejected prescription, and ordered the supplier to refund R18,424.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Defective Goods
• Implied Warranty Of Quality
• Prescription
• Refund Remedy
• Consumer-protection-act