THE National Consumer Tribunal has ruled in favour of a KwaZulu-Natal wedding venue owner, allowing him to retain a R12,000 deposit after a cancelled booking.
Image: Pexels
THE National Consumer Tribunal has ruled in favour of a KwaZulu-Natal wedding venue owner, allowing him to retain a R12,000 deposit after a cancelled booking.
It set aside a compliance notice issued by the National Consumer Commission, ruling that the regulator overstepped its legal powers in a dispute involving a KwaZulu-Natal wedding venue and a cancelled booking.
The tribunal found that the commission acted “ultra vires” — went beyond its legal authority — when it ordered venue owner Wouter van der Merwe, trading as The Venue Shongweni, to refund a client’s deposit following a cancelled wedding booking.
The case centred on a complaint lodged after a R12,000 deposit was paid in March 2022 to secure a wedding venue for a July 2022 event. The booking was later cancelled, and the venue retained the deposit in line with its terms and conditions, which allowed for a 25% cancellation fee.
The commission ruled that the fee was unreasonable under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and issued a compliance notice in June 2025. It directed van der Merwe to refund the full amount or a substantial portion of it to the consumer.
Van der Merwe challenged the notice, arguing that the cancellation occurred at short notice, leaving him unable to secure alternative bookings and resulting in a significant financial loss. He maintained that the retained amount was fair and consistent with industry practice.
The tribunal did not rule on whether the cancellation fee itself was reasonable. Instead, it focused on the legality of the commission’s actions, delivering a sharp rebuke of the regulator.
Instead, it found that the commission improperly made definitive findings of wrongdoing and effectively awarded damages — powers that rest solely with the Tribunal.
“The commission appointed itself as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and executioner,” the Tribunal stated, adding that such conduct is not permitted under the Consumer Protection Act.
The judgment emphasised that compliance notices are intended to ensure adherence to the law, not to determine disputes or impose financial remedies.
The tribunal also expressed concern about the commission’s approach to enforcement, noting that compliance notices should not be used as a first resort without proper investigation or consideration of alternative legal processes.
During the hearing, the commission’s representative conceded there may have been an oversight, but the Tribunal said such explanations were inadequate given the body’s role as the primary enforcer of consumer law.
However, the ruling does not explicitly decide whether van der Merwe is entitled to keep the deposit, also, there is no valid order forcing him to refund the deposit, so he keeps it for now.
The tribunal only dealt with the legality of the compliance notice, not the underlying dispute about the cancellation fee.