INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, represented by Messrs G Marcus SC and S Budlender, is Cell C (Pty) Ltd, registration number 1999/007722/07, a private company with limited liability incorporated in South Africa.

The Respondent, represented by Mr. O Thupayatlase, is the National Consumer Commission established in terms of section 85 of the Consumer Protection Act, Act 68 of 2008 (CPA).

The Applicant brought an application to the National Consumer Tribunal (Tribunal) to have a compliance notice issued against it by the Respondent, reviewed and cancelled in terms of section 101(1) of the CPA.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter in terms of section 101(1) of the CPA. This section provides that a person issued with a compliance notice in terms of section 100 may apply to the Tribunal in the prescribed manner and form for its review.

A pre-hearing conference was held on 7 February 2012. At this pre-hearing conference, the Applicant explained that the grounds for review could be divided into two categories. There were preliminary grounds of review which related to the procedure and legality of the compliance notice and substantive grounds of review which relate to the correctness of the substance of the compliance notice. It was agreed that the Tribunal would deal with the procedural issues first as it would serve little purpose to continue into a lengthy hearing on the substance of the compliance notice itself if the Tribunal determined that the compliance notice had not been issued in accordance with the law.

This judgment follows the hearing of this matter on 20 March 2012 and 19 June 2012 at the offices of the Tribunal in Centurion. The judgment is based largely on written submissions by all the parties as well as oral arguments and written heads of argument. In line with the agreement reached at the pre-trial conference, this judgment focuses on the procedural grounds for review and not the merits of the compliance notice itself.