Consumer Goods and Services Ombud NPC and Another v Voltex (Pty) Ltd and Others

[2021] ZAGPPHC 309 | Gauteng High Court, Pretoria | 26 March 2021 | Strijdom AJ

Summary of what this judgment is relied on for

The site cites Voltex for the proposition that participation in the CGSO is compulsory for qualifying suppliers under the Consumer Goods and Services Industry Code of Conduct, which was gazetted under CPA s 82 in March 2015.

Facts

• Voltex, an electrical wholesaler, refused to pay the CGSO’s annual supplier levies (~R285,000 annually at the time) and demanded a refund of levies previously paid.
• CGSO sought a declaratory order from the High Court confirming that the Industry Code is binding on all suppliers in the consumer-goods-and-services sector and that Voltex’s levies had been lawfully collected.

Held

The court granted CGSO the declaratory order sought. The Code is a binding regulatory instrument made under CPA s 82; suppliers in the sector cannot opt out of participation or levies.

Why we cite it

Voltex is the case that converts “CGSO is an Ombud” into “CGSO is a compulsory Ombud scheme.” It’s the authority for the plain-English line the site uses: Takealot is required to engage — it’s not a goodwill gesture.

Commentary corroboration

• Daily Maverick, 7 April 2021: “Legal victory: Consumer Goods and Services Ombudsman wins membership fee battle” — daily-maverick-voltex-2021.md
• Juta Journals note: “The legitimacy of the South African Consumer Goods and Services Ombud’s Code of Conduct”

Full judgment text

Not yet mirrored in this file. Primary source: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2021/309.html