The National Consumer Commission (NCC) welcomes significant outcomes from the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) and the National Consumer Tribunal (Tribunal), which collectively reinforce compliance with the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) and protect consumers from unfair trade practices.
Six judgments dealt with the conduct of dealerships that failed to comply with the CPA, two Tribunal rulings addressed two suppliers of goods and services that failed to issue sales records, displayed goods written in a foreign language, and sold expired foodstuffs, one on refusal to refund for a cancelled trip and the other dealt with an attempt to rescind a Tribunal judgment.
The courts ordered these suppliers to refund to the consumers a total sum of R1 122 090, 70 (one million, one hundred and twenty-two thousand, ninety rands and seventy cents). Suppliers were also ordered to pay a total sum of R555 000 (five hundred and fifty-five rands) in penalty. These judgments were handed down between July 2026 and October 2026
Spares 4 Africa CC
The High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) dismissed an appeal by Spares 4 Africa CC with costs. Spares 4 Africa CC referred the matter to the High Court following the Tribunal’s ruling in 2024. The Tribunal had found that Spares 4 Africa CC contravened sections 47(2)(a) and (b), and 54(1)(a) (d) of the CPA. This was after Spares 4 Africa installed an incorrect engine in a consumer’s 2017 Ford Focus and retained the vehicle for more than four years. The Tribunal ordered the supplier to return the vehicle, refund R5 000 (five thousand rand) the consumer paid for deposit with interest. The supplier was further ordered to pay an administrative fine of R75 000 (seventy-five thousand rand).
Flawless Cars (Pty) Ltd
The Tribunal found that Flawless Cars (Pty) Ltd (Flawless Cars) contravened the CPA. This was after Flawless Cars disregarded a compliance notice issued by the NCC in August 2025. The NCC had received and investigated a consumer’s complaint who alleged that they purchased a Ford Fiesta for R170 000 (one hundred and seventy thousand rand) in December 2015. Within six months of purchase, the vehicle presented continuous mechanical issues and numerous attempts were made to repair the vehicle, with no luck. In June 2016, the consumer requested cancellation of the sale agreement, but Flawless Cars ignored the request and collected the vehicle for further repairs.
The car remained in the supplier’s possession since June 2016. The investigation revealed and confirmed that the NCC possess reasonable grounds to believe that Flawless Cars contravened sections 48(2)(a) and (b), 49(1)(a) and (b) read with sections 49(2) and (4), 55(2), and 56(2) of the CPA. Flawless Cars was further instructed to refund the consumer the purchase price of the vehicle within 14 (fourteen) days. Flawless Cars failed to comply with a statutory compliance notice; the NCC referred the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the dealership’s wilful disregard for regulatory notices warranted a punitive administrative penalty of R100 000 (one hundred thousand rand).
Sunward Motors (Pty) Ltd
In this matter, the Tribunal found that Sunward Motors (Pty) Ltd (Sunward Motors) contravened section 56(3) of the CPA. The matter stems from a complaint lodged by the consumer after paying R341 852.50 (three hundred and forty-one thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two rand and fifty cents) for a used 2016 Ford Tourneo Connect on the 9th of February 2023. Following multiple mechanical breakdowns, the consumer invoked their rights to cancel the contract under section 56 of the CPA. Sunward Motors failed to provide a refund or replacement as required by law. The Tribunal ordered Sunward Motors to refund the consumer R302 898 (three hundred and two thousand, eight hundred and ninety-eight rand).
Affordable Investments CC (t/a Used Car Centre) Settlement Order
The Tribunal confirmed a settlement agreement entered into between the NCC and Used Car Centre, making it a consent order in terms of Section 74(1) of the CPA. The agreement follows an investigation into a complaint lodged by a consumer regarding a defective pre-owned vehicle. While the dealership had already refunded the consumer the full purchase price in the amount of R200 000.00 (two hundred thousand rand), the NCC identified prohibited terms and conditions in the sale agreement that contravened section 51(1)(b)(i). With these terms, Used Car Centre attempted to make the consumer waive their statutory rights regarding defective goods and repairs. Affordable Investments CC agreed to pay an administrative fine of R50 000 (fifty thousand rand).
Herring & Van der Burgh CC (t/a Auto King, Milnerton)
In this matter, the Tribunal ordered Herring & Van der Burgh CC trading asAuto King to pay a total of R336 117.70 (three hundred and thirty-six thousand, one hundred and seventy cents) to the consumer and the consumer’s financing bank. This was after the Tribunal found that Auto King contravened section 55(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the CPA. This was after the consumer purchased a used 2015 Hyundai H1 for R328 345 (three hundred and twenty-eight thousand, three hundred and forty-five rand) that continuously emitted heavy dark smoke, suffered from a persistent internal engine oil leak in the turbocharger, and experienced a compromised cylinder head.
The NCC’s investigation into the matter revealed that the Auto King engaged in prohibited conduct and referred the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of both the sale and credit agreements, directed the dealership to collect the vehicle at its own risk and expense, refund the consumer R90 000(ninety thousand rand) paid for the deposit, and repay R246 117.70 (two hundred and forty-six thousand, one hundred and seventeen rand and seventy cents) to the financing bank. Auto King was ordered to pay an administrative fine of R100 000 (one hundred thousand rand).
Kia East Rand (Pty) Ltd
In a High Court judgment, the Gauteng Division in Pretoria dismissed, with costs, an appeal by Kia East Rand (Pty) Ltd (Kia East Rand) against the Tribunal’s ruling. In this matter, the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the NCC, ordering the supplier to refund the consumer R245 075 (two hundred and forty-five thousand and seventy-five rand). The supplier was further ordered to pay an administrative fine of R50 000 (fifty thousand Rand) and bear the legal costs of the appeal. In this matter, the consumer bought a pre-owned 2015 Audi A3 on 9 September 2022, which exhibited persistent defects, including engine overheating and recurring oil pressure warning lights within weeks of purchase. Despite three separate repair attempts, the supplier failed to resolve the defects. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that Kia East Rand contravened Section 56(3) of the CPA, confirming that the dealership must refund to the consumer the purchase price of the vehicle and an administrative fine as imposed by the Tribunal.
Braai Block (Pty) Ltd
The Tribunal dismissed an appeal brought by Braai Block (Pty) Ltd (Braai Block). In this matter, the Tribunal addressed its procedural processes. The appeal followed a ruling on 18 June 2025 that refused condonation for the late filing of a rescission application. Braai Block rescinded the Tribunal’s ruling handed down on 10 December 2024, where the Tribunal ruled that Braai Block contravened sections 26(3)(a) and 26(3)(b) of the CPA. Braai Block was further ordered to pay R1000 000 (one million rand) for contravening the CPA. However, the Tribunal ruled that Braai Block failed to establish good cause or cover its full delay, noting that Section 165(a) of the National Credit Act (NCA) applies strictly to orders granted in the absence of a party. Consequently, the R1 000 000 (one million rand) administrative penalty remains in force.
Imagine Cruising (Pty) Ltd t/a Imagine Holidays
The NCT confirmed a settlement agreement between the NCC and a travel agency, Imagine Cruising (Pty) Ltd t/a Imagine Holidays. The NCC received and investigated a consumer’s complaint who alleged that Imagine Holidays failed to refund money paid for a trip to Europe. The NCC’s investigation revealed that the consumer was quoted R66,500.00 (sixty-six thousand five hundred rand) and paid a deposit of R33,000.00 (thirty-three thousand rand). The consumer further paid R34,000.00 (thirty-four thousand rand). After cancelling the agreement, the respondent refunded only R34,000.00 and retained the deposit. The NCC concluded that Imagine Holidays contravened sections 17(2) to (4), 48(2)(a) and (b), and 51(1)(a) and (b) of the CPA. In terms of the order, Imagine Holidays will refund the consumer an outstanding amount.
Lien Shin Trading (Pty) Ltd
The NCC conducted an inspection of the premises of Lien Ship Trading (Pty) Ltd (Lien Shin) to assess compliance with the CPA and food safety regulations. This inspection revealed various non-compliance, including food items with trade descriptions in a foreign language, products without date markings, and products that had passed their best-before dates. The NCC’s second inspection on 2 December 2025 confirmed that Lien Shin continued to display and sell these non-compliant food items despite prior notice. The NCC referred the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal ruled that by displaying and selling food items with obscure trade descriptions, items labelled in a foreign language, items with no date markings, and by keeping expired products on the shelves, Lien Shin contravened sections 24(3), 40(1)(a) -(b) and 55(2)(d) read with Regulations 146. The Tribunal ordered Lien Shin to pay an administrative penalty of R100 000 (one hundred thousand rand).
Economic Innovative Bags (Pty) Ltd (t/a V29 Shop)
The Tribunal found that V29 Shop contravened section 26(2) of the CPA by failing to provide consumers with written records of transactions or sales records. This matter follows the NCC’s market monitoring inspections in the Western Cape. During the inspection, the NCC found numerous contraventions, including not issuing sales records and unfair terms stating that no refunds were permitted after purchase. The NCC referred this matter to the Tribunal. The supplier defended its non-compliance by claiming to be a small enterprise, but the Tribunal was not persuaded that the size of the supplier was a justifiable reason to contravene the CPA. The Tribunal imposed an administrative penalty of R80 000 (eighty thousand rand).
Welcoming these judgments, Acting Commissioner of the NCC, Mr Hardin Ratshisusu, said, “These judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court affirm the NCC’s resolve in tackling the violations of the CPA, and that there are consequences for non-compliance. Suppliers are reminded of their obligations to protect consumer rights in terms of the CPA.”
Ends
Issued by: Phetho Ntaba (Spokesperson) on behalf of the National Consumer Commission (NCC)
For media enquiries and interview requests, contact:
Adelaide Ramalamola: 072 831 6406
Follow us on:
Facebook: The National Consumer Commission
LinkedIn: National Consumer Commission
X Handle: @TheNCC_RSA
WhatsApp Channel: @TheNCC_RSA