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
Leff v Eastrand Engen and Turbo (NCT/348735/2024/114(1)) [2025] ZANCT 2 (3 February 2025)
The Tribunal found the respondent failed to provide engine reconditioning services of the required quality and ordered a 90% refund under the CPA.
Leotlela v Stepmer Panel Beaters CC t/a Car Doctor Panel Beaters (NCT/270106/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 49 (9 October 2024)
The Tribunal dismissed a consumer complaint about alleged defective vehicle repairs, finding no proof that the respondent caused the faults and no basis for further relief.
National Consumer Commission v Supertech Motor Holdings (Pty) Ltd trading as BMW (NCT/335480/2024/73(2)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 27 (11 September 2024)
The Tribunal found a motor repairer contravened section 54(1)(b) of the CPA by failing to repair a consumer’s vehicle to an expected standard and imposed a R20,000 fine.
Subrayen v FCA South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (NCT/214406/2022/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 62 (12 December 2022)
The Tribunal dismissed the consumer complaint because the applicant failed to prove locus standi to sue on behalf of the estate or in his own name.
Singh v Fasquip Trading CC, Trading as Woodlands Decor (NCT/157995/2020/75(1)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 53 (19 September 2022)
The Tribunal ordered a refund for defective blinds that failed to meet the agreed standard and installation quality, but declined to impose an administrative fine.
Orsmond v Thoabala (FSCAC2020/11-4) [2020] ZACONAF 3 (18 December 2020)
Consumer affairs tribunal partially upheld a vehicle-repair complaint, ordering a gearbox repair or refund and a partial refund for later repair charges.
Ralph v Auto C Motorworx CC (NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 8 (8 February 2019)
The Tribunal found defective motor vehicle repair services and ordered the respondent to refund R4000, with no costs order.
Modiba and Another v Oosthuizen (NW10/2018) [2018] ZACONAF 9 (13 August 2018)
Consumer Affairs Court case about a defective borehole drill. The court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim and ordered a R30,000 refund to the plaintiffs.
Damage to wedding gown by drycleaner: Restore if possible (2014114294) [2014] ZACGSO 13 (23 May 2014)
A wedding gown was discoloured after dry cleaning. The Ombud found no liability for the dry cleaner, but held the risk should have been disclosed and restoration attempted if feasible.
Coertze and Another v Young (NCT/7142/2012/73(3)&75(1)(b)&(2) CPA) [2013] ZANCT 25 (13 September 2013)
The Tribunal granted leave to refer a consumer complaint directly and ordered a refund of R17,000 after finding the respondent failed to perform agreed services.
Explore more
