REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Delete whichever is not applicable
(1) REPORTABLE : ¥-e-S-/ NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : ~/NO
(3) REVISED : ~/NO
18 September 2025
DATE
In the matter between:
LAMBONS (PTY) LTD
and
SIGNATURE
THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL
THE NATIONAL CONSUMER COMMISSION
WILHELMINA JOHANNA BERNARDO
JUDGMENT
M MOKADIKOA-CHAUKE AJ
1
Case Number: 2023- 046832
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a review application wherein the applicant, Lambes (Pty) Ltd ("the
applicant"), seeks an order in the following terms:
1.1. That the judgment of the first respondent ('Tribunal"), delivered on 14
April 2023 under case number NCT/239846/2022/100(6)(a), be
reviewed and set aside;
1.2. That the Compliance Notice issued by the second respondent
("Commission") on 4 November 2021 in terms of section 100(6)(a) of the
Consumer Protection Act 34 of 2005 ("the CPA") be reviewed and set
aside, and to the extent necessary, that this Court condones the
applicant's non-compliance with section 7 of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 ("PAJA");
1.3. That the first and second respondents be ordered to pay the costs of
this application, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be
absolved; and
1.4. That both the Tribunal's ruling and the Commission's comp liance notice
be declared unlawful administrative acts.
2. The applicant makes it plain that it does not seek a definitive adjudication on
the underlying dispute between itself and the third respondent, Ms Bernardo.
The latter is joined to these proceedings by reason of the fact that her rights
may be implicated, albeit indirectly.
2
3. The second and third respondent ("Barnado") oppose the application. The
essence of their opposition is fourfold:
3.1. That the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements section
7(1) and 9(1) of PAJA;
3.2. That no substantive grounds exist warranting the review of the impugned
decisions of either the Commission or the Tribunal;
3.3. That the applicant's founding papers fail to disclose a cause of action in
review; and
3.4 That the applicant's delay in instituting proceedings is inordinate and
unexplained.
BACKGROUND
4. The material facts are largely common cause and may be summarised
thus:
4.1. On 9 February 2012, the third respondent purchased a GWM Steed 2.5
TCI single cab 4x4 motor vehicle from the applicant, operating as a
GWM franchise under the trade name Lambons Kimberley. The vehicle
was financed through GWM Finance, a division of WesBank , itself a
division of FirstRand Bank Ltd.
4.2. Within the first month of purchase, the vehicle manifested numerous
mechanical and technical defects, prompting repeated interventions by
the applicant between February and November 2012.
3
~-~--------
4.3. The applicant thereafter refused to release the vehicle to the third
respondent unless she signed an acknowledgment that the vehicle had
been satisfactorily repaired. She declined to do so without first testing
the vehicle. The vehicle has since remained in the applicant's
possession.
4.4. The third respondent lodged a complaint with the second respondent,
which referred the matter to the Motor Industry Ombudsman of South
Africa ("MIOSA ") on 18 March 2014.
4.5. MIOSA recommended that the matter be resolved in terms of sections
56 and 20 of the CPA. It recommended further that the applicant inspect
the vehicle and, if necessary, refund the purchase price less deductions
or assist in calculating the cost of usage.
4.6. Following litigation initiated by the third respondent in this Court, the
second respondent issued a Compliance Notice on 4 November 2021
pursuant to an order by Nthambeleni AJ.
4.7. The Compliance Notice required the applicant either to refund the
consumer the purchase price, less permissible deductions under section
20 of the CPA, or to replace the vehicle with one of equivalent value, in
accordance with section 56(3).
4.8. The applicant received the Compliance Notice on 25 November 2021.
It sought an extension in terms of section 101 (1 )(b) of the CPA to lodge
a review, but no such review application was filed.
4
4.9. On 11 August 2022, the second respondent instituted proceedings
before the Tribunal to enforce the Compliance Notice. On 14 April 2023,
the Tribunal imposed an administrative fine of R200 ,000.
4.1 O. The present review application was launched in May 2023,
approximately 18 months after the Compliance Notice was issued.
THE APPLICANT 'S CASE
5. The applicant challenges both the Compliance N otice and the Tribunal's ruling
on several grounds.
5.1. As regards the Compliance Notice, it avers that its version was
disregarded, that it was denied the opportunity to present a full account,
and that the notice was premised on errors of fact. R eliance is placed on
section 6(2)(c), (d), (e)(iii), (iv), (f)(i) and (h)(i) of PAJA.
5.2. As regards the Tribunal's judgment, the applicant contends that it was
denied its audi alteram partem rights, that the Tribunal committed gross
irregularities by refusing to entertain its collateral challenge to the validity
of the Compl iance Notice, and that its request for an adjournment to
regularise the review process was unreasonably denied.
5.3. The applicant further seeks condonation for its failure to comply with the
time limits in section 7(1) of PAJA, and exemption under section 7(2)(c)
from exhausting the internal remedy provided for in section 101 of the
CPA.
THE FIRST RESPONDENT 'S CASE
5
6. The Tribunal, has not opposed the application and accordingly abides the
decision of this Court.
THE SECOND RESPONDENT 'S CASE
7. The application falls short of the requirements of Section 7(1) of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 ("PAJA "), which
provides:
'}'.\ny proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(1) must be instituted
without unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days after the date
(a) subject to subsection (2)(c), on which any proceedings instituted in terms of
internal remedies as contemplated in subsection (2)(a) have been concluded;
or
(b) where no such remedies exist, on which the person concerned was informed
of the administrative action, became aware of the action and the reasons for it,
or might reasonably have been expected to have become aware of the action
and the reasons."
8. Although PAJA allows a period of 180 days for the institution of review
proceedings, the applicant has not brought any application for condonation in
this Court, despite conceding that the review is out of time. In the absence of
such condonation, the Court is not empowered to entertain the relief sought in
prayer 2 of the notice of motion. The application is therefore fatally defective on
this basis alone.
9. The applicant deliberately ignored the compliance notice issued on 4 November
2021, notwithstanding its full knowledge of the binding nature of such notice
6
and the consequences of non-compliance. The notice was issued after the
Commission had duly considered the report of the Motor Industry Ombudsman
of South Africa ("MIOSA"), which unequivocally confirmed the defective
condition of the motor vehicle in question and recommended remedies in terms
of sections 20 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 ("CPA ").
1 O. It is the Commission's case that as far back as 25 November 2021, the applicant
was aware that its proper cause of action lay in a review in terms of section 101
of the CPA. Instead of pursuing that statutorily prescribed route, the applicant
wrongfully sought an extension of time from the Commission. The Commission,
however, has no statutory authority to grant such an extension. In terms of
section 101 (2) of the CPA , only the National Consumer Tribunal is empowered
to entertain and determine an application to set aside or vary a compliance
notice.
11 . The applicant's conduct demonstrates a contemptuous disregard of the
statutory framework. By deliberately ignoring the compliance notice,
misdirecting its recourse, and adopting a dismissive posture toward the
Commission's directives, the applicant has shown a disdain both for the law
and for the processes designed to vindicate consumer rights. Such conduct
cannot now be converted into a complaint of procedural unfairness.
12. It is the Commission's case that, as to the Tribunal's judgment of 14 April 2023,
the Tribunal acted within its limited jurisdiction under Section 100(6)(a) of the
CPA , which is confined to determining whether a compliance notice has been
issued and whether there has been non-compliance. The Tribunal is not
empowered to interrogate the validity of a compliance notice; that enquiry
7
properly lies under Section 101. The applicant's attempt to characterise the
Tribunal's decision as a reviewable irregularity is therefore misconceived.
13. In sum , it is the Commission's case that the compliance notice was lawfully
issued, the Tribunal lawfully confirmed the consequences of non-compliance,
and the applicant's obstructive and dilatory conduct cannot be rewarded by this
Court. The application is devoid of merit and falls to be dismissed with costs on
an appropriate scale.
THE THIRD RESPONDENT 'S CASE
14. It is the Third Respondent's case that she purchased a motor vehicle from the
Applicant in terms of an instalment sale agreement concluded with GWM
Finance, a division of WesBank , which is itself a division of FirstRand Bank
Limited. The vehicle in question was a GWM Steed 2.5 TC I single cab 4x4
motor vehicle.
15. Shortly after taking delivery, the vehicle experienced persistent technical and
mechanical defects, which the Third Respondent reported to the Applicant on
27 February 2012. The Applicant undertook repair work on the vehicle on
approximately ten occasions between February and Novembe r 2012.
16. After the final repair attempt, the Applicant informed the Third Respondent that
the vehicle would only be returned to her upon her signing an acknowledgment
that the vehicle had been repaired to her satisfaction. The Third Respondent
refused to sign the acknowledgment as she had not been afforded the
opportunity to test the vehicle following the repairs. Thereafter, the Applicant
retained possession of the vehicle, which remains in its custody to date.
8
17. On 12 November 2013, the Third Respond ent submitted a formal complaint to
the National Consumer Commission, which in turn referred the matter to the
Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa ("MIOSA") on 18 March 2014. The
Third R espondent thereafter brought an application to compe l the Commission
to issue a compliance notice. Pursuant to that application, the compliance
notice was issued on 4 November 2021. The Applicant, with full knowledge of
the notice's implications and binding nature, deliberately failed to comply w ith it
and further failed to file a review against the comp liance notice in terms of
section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008 ("CPA ").
18. Following the Applicant's non-compliance, the Commission instituted
proceedings against the Applicant before the Consumer Tribunal on 11 August
2022. The Tribunal granted condonation for the late filing of the App licant's
opposing affidavit and, on 26 April 2023, handed down judgment ordering the
Applicant to pay an administrative fine of R200 ,000 into the National Revenue
Fund in terms of section 213 of the Constitution.
19. The Applicant thereafter launched the present review application in May 2023,
approximately 18 months after the issuance of the compliance notice. The Third
Respondent contends that there was undue and inexcusable delay before the
institution of this review and that the Applicant has provided no explanation for
its failure to exhaust the internal remedy provided for under section 101 of the
CPA, nor for the delay in launching the application.
20. It is the Third Respondent's case that, in the absence of any valid justification
for the delay or failure to follow the statutory process, there is no basis to
entertain the relief sought in prayer 2 of the Applicant's notice of motion. Should
9
the Court be inclined to condone non-compliance with the provisions of section
7 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 ("PAJA "), and that
no grounds exist to review or set aside the compliance notice issued by the
Commission.
FINDINGS
Deliberate Non -Compliance with the Compliance Notice
21. The Applicant deliberately refused to comp ly with the Compliance Notice issued
by the National Consu m er Commission on 4 Nove m ber 2021. The conduct,
including withholding the vehicle and demanding storage fees, demonstrates a
contemptuous disregard for the C om m ission's authority.
22. In Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town & Others 2004 (6) SA
222 (SCA), para 32. the Supreme Court of Appeal held that an unlawful
administrative act remains legally effective until set aside by a court. The Court
emphasized that the legal consequences of the administrative act persist until
formally annulled.
Failure to Utilize Statutory R emedy under Section 101 of the CPA
23. The Applicant failed to seek a review under section 101 of the CPA, which
constitutes a failure to exhaust statutory remedies.
24. In State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty)
Ltd [2017] ZACC 40, para 40, the Constitutional Court confirmed that PAJA
provides the exclusive mechanism for challenging administrative action, and
failure to utilise this remedy renders the review application defective.
10
25. The Court further emphasized that parties cannot ignore statutory remedies and
later seek relief under PA JA outside the prescribed processes (para 43).
Undue Delay in Instituting Review Proceedings
26. The Applicant delayed instituting review proceedings for approximately 18
months, without seeking condonation.
27. Section 7(1) of PAJA mandates that proceedings for judicial review be instituted
without unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days after the person
becomes aware of the adm inistrative action.
28. In State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty)
Ltd [2017] ZACC 40, para 44, the Constitutional Court held that undue delay
undermines the rule of law and certainty in administrative processes, stressing
that the right to review is not absolute and must be exercised within reasonable
timeframes.
Lawfulness and Rationality of the Compliance Notice
29. The Compliance Notice issued by the National Consumer Commiss ion was
lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.
30. In Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others 2007
(12) BLLR 1097 (CC), para 110, the Constitutional Court held that
administrative action must be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. The
standard of reasonableness requires that administrative decisions be rationally
connected to the purpose for which the power was granted and consider all
relevant factors.
11
5. Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Powers
31. The National Consumer Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in imposing an
administrative fine of R200,000 under section 100(6)(a) of the CPA.
32. In Merafong City Local Municipality v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd 2017 (2) SA
211 (CC), para 36, the Constitutional Court confirmed that administrative bodies
must act within their statutory powers and that actions beyond those powers
are ultra vires and invalid.
33. The Tribunal was correct to impose the fine, as the Applicant had failed to
comply with a legally binding Compliance Notice.
6. Applicant's Contentions Are Without Merit
34. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any reviewable irregularity, illegality,
or irrationality in the administrative acts of the Commission or the Tribunal.
35. In Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association v Harrison 2011 (4)
SA 42 (CC), para 23, the Constitutional Court held that a party seeking to set
aside administrative action bears the onus of proving that the action was
unlawful, unreasonable, or procedurally unfair. Mere dissatisfaction with an
administrative decision is insufficient to warrant review.
36. In the result I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed.
12
2. The Applicant is orderecl to pay the costs of this application on the
scale as between attorney and client, including the costs of two
counsel whe re so employed.
3. An attorney-and-client costs order is justified in this m atter, having
regard to the Applicant's deliberate non-compliance with a binding
Compliance Notice, its failure to pursue the statutory remedies
available under section 101 of the CPA , its undue delay of more than
18 months in launching the review, and the contemptuous and
obstructive conduct exhibited towards the Commission and Tribunal
throughout the proceedings.
4. Such conduct warrants censure, as it demonstrates not only disregard
for statutory authority but also an abuse of judicial process. In these
circumstances, a punitive costs order is necessary both to mark the
Court's disapproval of the Applicant's conduct and to indemnify the
Respondents fully against the expense to which they have been put.
13
M MOKADIKOA-CHAUKE AJ
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances :
For the Applicant: Adv Grobbelaar SC
Instructed by: A Van Jaarsveld
Email: adriaan@gva.co.za
On behalf of the Second Respondent : Adv Maisela
Instructed by: Lekh u Pilson Attorneys
E-mail: ilekhu@lekhupilson.co.za
On behalf of the Third Respondent: Adv K Fitzroy
Instructed by: Jappie Van Zyl Attorneys c/o Phillip Venter Attorneys
Email: leon@pvlaw.co.za
CC: ca2@pvlaw.co.za
Reserved : 25 August 2025
Handed down : 16 September 2025
14