Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Du Toit v Engines for Africa (Denver) (Pty) Ltd (NCT/343426/2024/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 10 (31 January 2025)
The Tribunal held that a replacement engine was defective and ordered the supplier to refund the purchase price, with the return of the engine at the supplier’s cost.
Culwick v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (NCT/316719/2024/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 60 (13 November 2024)
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.
Gewanlal and Another v Door Masters JHB (Pty) Ltd (NCT/275743/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 14 (3 July 2024)
The Tribunal found that the supplier failed to perform paid-for wood restoration services and ordered a full refund of R23,418 under the Consumer Protection Act.
Molale v Elarda (NW17/2023) [2024] ZACONAF 9 (26 March 2024)
The court cancelled a laybye agreement for a headboard after the seller failed to deliver, and ordered a refund of the R7,000 purchase price.
Adlam v Fabri South Africa (Pty) Ltd (A5009/2021;42702/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 206; [2022] HIPR 189 (GJ) (8 April 2022)
The High Court held that custom-designed kitchen and furniture goods were special-order goods, so the CPA cancellation right did not apply. The appeal was dismissed.
Nxuma v Sedidi (FSCAC 2020/11-5) [2020] ZACONAF 4 (6 November 2020)
The Consumer Affairs Court ordered a refund for defective vehicle repairs and sheriff’s fees, but declined to award damages for the crashed vehicle.
Gogwana v Border Aluminium (Pty) Ltd (NCT/97615/2017/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 59 (16 August 2018)
The Tribunal granted leave to refer a consumer dispute directly, finding unresolved factual issues about paid-for windows, delivery, and a requested refund.
Return of Shoes (201505-0137) [2015] ZACGSO 9 (22 July 2015)
The Ombud found no basis for a refund for shoes that did not fit the same as another pair, holding there was no defect under the CPA and closing the file.
Cancellation of orders for product not in writing: Supplier should accept cancellation (20131021759, 201310281082, 201310281117, 20131119991) [2014] ZACGSO 4 (21 May 2014)
The Ombud held that the supplier should accept the complainants’ cancellations, backdate acceptance to first notice, and calculate refunds under the CPA or NCA.
Hyginique Toilet Hire & Sales v Chauke and Another (NCT/3592/2011/101(1)(P) CPA) [2012] ZANCT 10 (29 June 2012)
The Tribunal granted condonation, reviewed the NCC compliance notice, and cancelled it after finding factual and legal errors in the notice.
Explore more
