South Africa Case Law

South African Securitisation Programme (Rf) (Pty) Ltd v Hakem Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/009594)

South African Securitisation Programme (Rf) (Pty) Ltd v Hakem Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/009594) [2025] ZAGPJHC 230 (6 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/009594

Judge

H A van der Merwe

The High Court granted the defendants leave to defend a summary judgment application, holding that a Consumer Protection Act defence deserved full ventilation at trial.

• Lease Agreement
• Consumer Protection Act
• Summary Judgment
• Guarantee Liability
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Summary-judgment

Williams v Cell C Ltd (NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b))

Williams v Cell C Ltd (NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)) [2025] ZANCT 12 (11 February 2025)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/300948/2023/75(1)(b)

Judges

C Sassman, S Hockey, C Ntsoane

The Tribunal found that clause 2 of the respondent's terms and conditions was ambiguous and misleading, failing to clearly distinguish between delays in imposing limits and delays in recording usage. The respondent's agent confirmed the limit was set before the applicant's trip, justifying her expectation that charges would not exceed R3 785.00. The respondent's subsequent conduct and terms attempted to limit liability and override statutory obligations, contravening sections 4(4)(a), 4(5)(b), 54(1)(b), 51(1)(b)(i)-(iii), and 48(1)(a)(i)-(ii), (c)(iii) of the CPA. The Tribunal held that the a…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Misleading Conduct
• Administrative Fine
• Refund Order

National Consumer Commission v Ferhaad N.O. and Others (NCT/322185/2024/73(2)(b))

National Consumer Commission v Ferhaad N.O. and Others (NCT/322185/2024/73(2)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 20 (18 July 2024)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/322185/2024/73(2)(b)

Judges

M Peenze, C Sassman, A Potwana

The Tribunal found unfair contract terms in a used-car sale and held the respondents liable for prohibited conduct, but rejected the defect claim. It imposed a R100,000 fine.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Administrative Fine
• Trustee Liability
• Implied Warranty
• Prohibited Conduct

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

Takealot Online (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Driveconsortium Hatfield (Pty) Ltd - Application for Leave to Appeal (7348/2021)

Takealot Online (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Driveconsortium Hatfield (Pty) Ltd - Application for Leave to Appeal (7348/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 280 (11 October 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7348/2021

Judge

Henney

The court found that the amendments to the notice of motion did not substantially alter the respondent's case and caused no prejudice to the applicant, who had ample opportunity to address the amended relief. The respondent established a prima facie right based on allegations of unfair, unreasonable, or unjust contract terms under the Consumer Protection Act, which are legal questions appropriately determined by a court. The court rejected the applicant's argument that jurisdiction was lacking due to an arbitration clause and the requirement to exhaust other remedies under section 69(d) of th…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Interim Interdict
• Contract Amendment
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Jurisdictional Exhaustion
• Costs Award

Oosthuizen t/a Wilger Motors v Puma Energy South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (5280/2019)

Oosthuizen t/a Wilger Motors v Puma Energy South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (5280/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 253 (28 November 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5280/2019

Judge

Murray, AJ

The court found that it had jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Brandfort, Free State, where the contract was to be performed. The applicant demonstrated urgency, as the need for relief only arose when the respondents refused to stay arbitration and insisted on proceeding, leaving her with no alternative remedy and a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm. The applicant was held to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, entitled to its protections, including the right to challenge unfair contract terms and the validity of the arbitration agreement. The court held that…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Agreement Validity
• Urgent Interdict
• Consumer Protection Act
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Prima Facie Right
• Unfair Contract Terms

Vela v Dos Santos (A3061/2018)

Vela v Dos Santos (A3061/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 123 (28 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3061/2018

Judges

L G Nkosi-Thomas, S E Weiner

The court held that the respondent was entitled to cancel the lease agreement due to the appellant's material breach in failing to provide full occupation of the premises, as required by the lease and common law. Clause 22, which purported to exclude cancellation, was found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable, as it conflicted with public policy and the Rental Housing Act. The respondent gave reasonable notice to remedy the breach, which the appellant failed to do. The inspection conducted by the respondent's representative and the appellant's housekeeper was deemed sufficient, and the a…

Source excerpt

• Lease Agreement
• Remission Of Rental
• Material Breach
• Deposit Refund
• Unfair Contract Terms

National Consumer Commission v M. Kleynhans t/a 3 Palms Bed and Breakfast Kuilsriver (NCT/63897/201673(2)(b))

National Consumer Commission v M. Kleynhans t/a 3 Palms Bed and Breakfast Kuilsriver (NCT/63897/201673(2)(b)) [2016] ZANCT 62 (24 December 2016)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/63897/201673(2)(b)

Judges

F Sibanda, L Best, B Dumisa

The Tribunal found a 50% cancellation fee unreasonable for a booking cancelled 76 days in advance and ordered the respondent to refund the balance.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Unreasonable Cancellation Fee
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Notice Of Cancellation
• Industry Practice
• Refund Of Booking Fee

Reg 44 fairness (201606-0007707)

Reg 44 fairness (201606-0007707) [2016] ZACGSO 12 (29 August 2016)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201606-0007707

Consumer complaint about unilateral changes to fitness-point goals linked to a watch purchase. The Ombud recommended accepting cancellation rather than restoring the original rules.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Unilateral Contract Amendment
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Regulation 44
• Contract Dissolution
• Consumer-protection-act

Cancellation fee: gym contract (201602-0005932)

Cancellation fee: gym contract (201602-0005932) [2016] ZACGSO 8 (7 March 2016)

Court

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Case number

201602-0005932

Judge

N Melville

The Ombud recommended a R699 settlement in a gym contract cancellation dispute, holding that cancellation penalties must be reasonable and exclude future profits.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Cancellation Penalty
• Contractual Liability
• Unfair Contract Terms
• Consumer-protection-act