South Africa Case Law

National Consumer Commission v Hanmon International CC (NCT/308359/2024/100(6)(a))

National Consumer Commission v Hanmon International CC (NCT/308359/2024/100(6)(a)) [2024] ZANCT 8 (19 April 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/308359/2024/100(6)(a)

Judges

C Sassman, MC Peenze, A Potwana

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with a compliance notice issued under section 100(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, despite proper service and notification. The respondent provided no valid reason for non-compliance and disregarded both the legislation and the authority of the applicant. The Tribunal considered the factors listed in section 112(3) of the CPA and found that, although there was no evidence of continuous contravention, consumer harm could result from the conduct. There was no evidence of profit or previous contraventions, and the respondent ceased cooper…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice
• Administrative Fine
• Product Labelling
• Trade Description

Maphutha v Early Worx 634 (Pty) Ltd Trading As Q Cars (NCT/290789/2023/75(1)(b))

Maphutha v Early Worx 634 (Pty) Ltd Trading As Q Cars (NCT/290789/2023/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 6 (25 March 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/290789/2023/75(1)(b)

Judges

A Potwana, M Peenze, N Maseti

The Tribunal found the vehicle seller engaged in prohibited conduct by misrepresenting the car’s model and mileage, but declined refund or price-reduction relief.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Misrepresentation
• Trade Description
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Prohibited Conduct
• Consumer-protection-act

National Consumer Commission v Stonehill International (Pty) Ltd (NCT-233199-2022-73(2)(b))

National Consumer Commission v Stonehill International (Pty) Ltd (NCT-233199-2022-73(2)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 67 (25 November 2022)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT-233199-2022-73(2)(b)

Judges

K Moodaliyar, C Sassman, A Potwana

The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not contravene section 24(5) of the CPA or regulation 6 of the CPA Regulations. The goods in question were unfinished textile fabric intended for further manufacturing, and the required trade description and country of origin were reflected in commercial documents accompanying the goods, which is permissible under section 24(1)(b) of the CPA. The Tribunal held that care labelling requirements apply only to finished products offered to consumers, not to raw materials. The Tribunal adopted a purposive interpretation of the CPA, emphasizing that the pur…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Labelling Requirements
• Trade Description
• Statutory Interpretation
• Prohibited Conduct

International Version and Trading Projects (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission (NCT/220923/2022/101(1))

International Version and Trading Projects (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission (NCT/220923/2022/101(1)) [2022] ZANCT 40 (10 July 2022)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/220923/2022/101(1)

Judges

P A Beck, L Best, M Peenze

The Tribunal set aside a compliance notice over mislabelled imported blankets and allowed the applicant to relabel the goods, subject to inspection before release.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice Review
• Trade Description
• Importation Of Goods
• Just Administrative Action
• Consumer-protection-act

Soulever Well CC t/a Bellabaci v National Consumer Commission (NCT/159598/2020/101(1))

Soulever Well CC t/a Bellabaci v National Consumer Commission (NCT/159598/2020/101(1)) [2021] ZANCT 16 (30 May 2021)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/159598/2020/101(1)

Judges

L. Best, F. Manamela, A. Potwana

The Tribunal found that the provisions of section 3(1)(e) and Regulation 6 of the Consumer Protection Act do not apply to goods intended solely for export and not for South African consumers. There was no evidence that the Applicant knowingly applied a misleading trade description to the bags, nor was there a principal-agent or employer-employee relationship between the Applicant and the manufacturer. The Applicant could not be held vicariously liable for the manufacturer's actions under section 113 of the CPA. The Respondent did not dispute the Applicant's version that the incorrect label wa…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice Review
• Trade Description
• Product Labelling
• Vicarious Liability