Our firm represented Julie Williams in a case before the National Consumer Tribunal where she disputed Cell C’s roaming charges incurred during a visit to Paris.
Mrs Williams had called Cell C prior to leaving the country to limit her roaming charges as she was worried that exorbitant charges may be incurred otherwise. At the same time, she wanted to have roaming so that her five young kids could contact her, as she was travelling without them.
Cell C read her their T&Cs on the phone on her day of departure. Mrs Williams had to insist, even requiring the call centre agent to transfer her call to the manager, in order to set the cap at an amount she could afford- a service which Cell C advertises. In terms of the T&Cs Cell C says that they may receive invoices from overseas service providers after having actioned the cap, and then the consumer would have to pay for those late fees too.
Ms Williams got a shock on her return- Cell C was charging an amount three times the cap. It was an amount she had not budgeted for, and had not expected, despite having heard the T&Cs.
The National Consumer Tribunal found in her favour, in February 2025, on the basis that setting a cap serves no purpose if it can be exceeded, and that Mrs Williams could reasonably expect that she should not be able to use the phone after the cap was reached. They also ruled that the proviso that further late invoices could be passed on to the consumer was unfair and so invalid in terms of section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Cell C appealed the judgment to the Pretoria High Court, which decided for Cell C during February 2026. The court based its decision on the proviso that was read to Mrs Williams, and since she was warned not to use roaming by Cell C.
Our firm found the judgment both disappointing and out of touch with the CPA. So we were gratified to see the latest update to the Commentary to the CPA, drafted by academics who specialise in consumer law- the commentary prefers the Tribunal’s judgment to the High Court judgment for the reason that a cap “suggests a hard limit in the mind of the ordinary consumer”. These comments have the effect that the appeal judgment in favour of Cell C will not create a precedent for future cases.
We continue to look for cases where we can support consumers’ rights against cellphone providers, who so often ride roughshod over the rights of ordinary South Africans.
Menu