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
Mathole v Sebo Motors (GCC/10/2022) [2022] ZACONAF 24 (12 September 2022)
The Consumer Affairs Court confirmed a settlement between Joel Mathole and Sebo Motors and made it an order of court, requiring monthly refund payments.
Masetlha v Subzero Construction And Project (GCC/03/2021) [2022] ZACONAF 25 (3 May 2022)
The Gauteng Consumer Affairs Court enforced a settlement agreement after the respondent failed to pay a refund for paving work and was absent from the hearing.
Sematla v Giant Auto Spares (GCC/02/2022) [2022] ZACONAF 23 (3 May 2022)
The Consumer Affairs Court confirmed a settlement as an order of court after the respondent failed to pay a R2,000 refund and did not attend the hearing.
Penzee v JD Services (PTY) Ltd, JDL Group (PTY) Ltd (GCC 11/2021) [2021] ZACONAF 5 (17 October 2021)
The court found the supplier failed to perform contracted services and ordered refunds and compensation for unperformed work, overpayments, and damage.
Ledwaba v Auto Alpina (Pty) Ltd (GCC 09/2020) [2020] ZACONAF 7 (14 December 2020)
The Consumer Affairs Court held that a consumer complaint about a vehicle purchase had prescribed under section 116(1)(a) of the CPA and dismissed the case.
Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd t/a Auto Niche Bloemfontein v MEC: Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism Free State Government and Others (A169/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 105; [2016] 3 All SA 794 (FB) (9 June 2016)
High Court review of a Free State Consumer Affairs Court ruling on jurisdiction was dismissed. The court held the consumer forum had jurisdiction under consumer legislation.
Volkswagen South Africa v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3913/2012/101(1)(P)CPA) [2013] ZANCT 10 (13 February 2013)
The Tribunal found that the Respondent issued the compliance notice without conducting the required investigation, rendering the notice invalid. The compliance notice was defective as it failed to set out the statutory basis for asserting a contravention of section 40 or Schedule 2, Part 8 of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 40 does not apply retrospectively to transactions concluded before the general effective date of the Act. The Respondent exceeded its powers by prescribing steps in the compliance notice that amounted to an award of damages or repayment, which is not permitted under t…
Source excerpt
Venter NO en 'n Ander v Coetzee en Andere (916/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 67 (17 June 2004)
The court found that BSM Marketing Management (Pty) Ltd operated an illegal pyramid scheme, as evidenced by the unrealistic guaranteed returns (45% in 4-6 months, equating to 90% per annum), the absence of genuine underlying business activity, and the use of new investor funds to pay earlier investors. The respondents’ explanations were rejected as far-fetched and untenable. The court confirmed that the liquidators had locus standi to bring the application, as the requirement for Master’s authorisation is intended to protect creditors and members, not to bar proceedings against third parties.…
Source excerpt
Janse van Rensburg and Another v Minister of Trade and Industry and Another (CCT13/99) [2000] ZACC 18; 2001 (1) SA 29 ; 2000 (11) BCLR 1235 (CC) (29 September 2000)
Section 7(3) of the Act, as originally enacted, was rendered moot by subsequent legislative amendment requiring judicial authorisation for searches and seizures. The Court declined to confirm the High Court's declaration of invalidity for section 7(3) as no live controversy remained. Section 8(5)(a) of the Act, however, remains unamended and empowers the Minister to stay business practices and attach assets without procedural fairness, adequate guidance, or prior warning. The section allows for drastic action based on untested allegations, affecting not only those under investigation but also…
Source excerpt
Explore more
