Motus Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wentzel

[2021] ZASCA 40 | Supreme Court of Appeal | 13 April 2021

Summary of what this judgment is relied on for

Site uses it only for the SCA’s obiter guidance on section 69(d) of the Consumer Protection Act — i.e. the proposition that s 69(d) is not a compulsory internal-hierarchy rule and that consumers may approach a court directly.

The critical paragraph — para 26 (verified verbatim)

“The need for us to address the scope of s 69(d) fell away in argument, because Mr Botes SC, who appeared for Renault and Renault SA, indicated that he would not pursue the point as his clients preferred to address the issues of substance. Therefore, the court did not hear full argument on the matter. The issues arising from the section will need to be resolved on another occasion.”

This makes the SCA’s reasoning about s 69(d) obiter dicta, not ratio. The court expressly declined to decide the point. Secondary commentary treats it the same way.

Other holdings in the case

The SCA disposed of the appeal on section 56(3) grounds — finding that Ms Wentzel had not satisfied the s 56(3) requirements for a refund. The High Court’s refund order was set aside.

Why we still cite it

Even as obiter, the guidance is from the SCA and has been followed by:

• Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr commentary (23 June 2021) — treated as obiter
• Financial Institutions Legal Snapshot (15 August 2022) — treated as obiter
• ENSafrica — discussed in the “Straight shot to the courts” note
• IR Global — same obiter framing

The argument for citing Motus on the site is: this is SCA direction, not SCA holding, but it’s still the highest-court signal on the s 69(d) question and the reasoning has been accepted in the commentary stream.

Full judgment text

Not yet mirrored in this file. Primary source: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2021/40.html

To complete this stub on the next refresh: fetch the full judgment text and paste below this line.