The land where dreams are made of
In a poignant book about the liberation struggle in South Africa, Two dogs and Freedom, black township school kids wrote about their dreams for their future.
They were touchingly simple. Moagi, an eight-year-old boy, wanted 'a wife and children, a boy and a girl, a big house, two dogs and freedom…'
There's an echo of that in the words of Bheki Mlaudzi, 32, a farm worker – and farm shareholder – at a community land restitution project in Mpumalanga.
The money he gets from working on the banana plantations and the stipend he gets from the Giba Communal Property Association (CPA) has enabled him to build a house.
He is living his dream… with a wife, two children and a positive view of what lies ahead.
The Giba CPA project is a shining example of what can be done to ensure that land restitution – one of the biggest political and social issues in South Africa today – actually succeeds.
ALSO READ: Mpumalanga association reaps land reform success
Too many times, communities who were dispossessed of their land during the colonial era and years of apartheid have had viable, successful farming operations turned over to them, only to see them fail.
That has made many people bitter and angry and a handful of crooks, both in communities and in government organs supposed to smooth the land transfer process, very rich.
In turn, those failures have provided ammunition for the critics of land reform, who say it is a threat to the very existence of commercial farming.
Giba CPA rents out its land to a white farming company which, as part of the agreement, gives priority in hiring members or descendants of the original community.
In addition, there is a transfer of skills programme which will, hopefully, provide trained farmers who can work their own land.
Giba shows what can be done.
NOW READ: Safari lodge shining example of land claim that works
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
Ombud gets R11.9 million back for consumers
Most of the complaints received were about online shopping, followed by complaints about electrical appliances. The Consumer Goods and Services Ombud managed to get R11.9 million back into consumers' pockets after resolving their complaints during the past financial year. According to the annual report of the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud (CGSO) that was released on Thursday, the CGSO responded to 41 855 email, telephone and WhatsApp queries, an average of 158 per day compared to 36 964 in the previous year and received 12 207 complaints. The CGSO's office closed 12 430 complaints, referred 1 918 out-of-jurisdiction complaints to other regulators and CGSO offices and settled 62% of complaints received within 60 days, getting back money or facilitating exchanges to the value of R11.9 million. ALSO READ: As online shopping grows, so do the complaints What consumers complained about According to the report, 8 740 (72%) of the 12 207 consumer complaints the CGSO's office received in the previous financial year were about goods, agreements, services and deliveries. Consumers mostly complained about goods that became defective within six months, late or unreasonable deliveries and punitive cancellation terms, where consumers had to pay a fine to cancel a transaction. Queen Munyai, CEO of the CGSO's office, says the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) expressly protects consumers in South Africa against all three of these practices. 'This makes them not so much customer service issues as customer rights issues. We call on all suppliers of goods and services to ensure that they are aware of the provisions of the CPA in this regard.' Online transactions once again topped the list of the top 10 complaints by sector, accounting for 30% of the 7 486 complaints in the 10 sectors with the most complaints (up from 26% in the previous year). 'Even as a percentage of all complaints received, online transactions are almost twice as likely to be complained as the next sector, electrical appliances and telecommunications and satellite services, to create headaches for consumers.' This list shows what consumers complained about the most compared to the previous two financial years: Ombud has favourable outcome for 64% of cases The CGSO's office was unable to proceed with 3 295 cases, including 1 918 cases that were referred to other regulators and CGSO offices and 441 that were closed due to a lack of cooperation from the consumer. In 9 135 of the remaining cases, 64% had a favourable outcome for consumers (up from 60% in 2023/24), with the CGSO finding fully in favour of 37% (3 393) of the cases, while 15% of cases (1 394) were resolved directly between the supplier and the complainant within the first 15 business days. However, 18% of complaints had to be closed due to non-cooperation from suppliers. ALSO READ: Squeaky mattress and R4 air fryer: Consumer ombud ensures refunds of R12 million Almost 80% of the complaints were submitted by consumers in the metro areas of Gauteng (48%), the Western Cape (18%) and KwaZulu-Natal (13%), while the other provinces trail far behind. Munyai says from speaking to consumers on the ground, the two most significant barriers to redress are lack of information and poverty. 'People often do not know their rights and even if they do, they do not know who to turn to for help. 'Many consumers also informed us that the high cost of data prevents them from lodging a complaint effectively, as almost all complaints are submitted via our website or the CGSO app.' She says the partnership with academia is also part of a strategic initiative to enhance awareness of the versatility of alternative dispute resolution processes by contributing to the academic discourse and bridging the gap between theory and practice for law students. 'Alternate dispute resolution as a process is an under-utilised mechanism in South Africa and I would love to see it used more widely to achieve social justice.' ALSO READ: Consumer Goods and Services Ombud gets R11.5 million back for consumers Women especially vulnerable Munyai also points out that women are disproportionately vulnerable as consumers, facing higher rates of poverty, unemployment and food insecurity compared to men. 'This vulnerability is further exacerbated by factors like unequal pay, limited access to resources and gender-based violence. 'Women-headed households, particularly those in the rural areas, experience higher poverty rates. They are also more likely to be unemployed or in low-skill, poorly paid jobs. For these women, a purchase that goes wrong can be the difference between putting food on the table and going hungry. 'For this reason, it is important that we find effective ways to reach women so that they are aware of their rights as consumers and the redress available in the event of a dispute with a supplier.' The CGSO relies exclusively on industry participants to fund its activities and Munyai says none of the work they do would be possible without the buy-in from business. 'As a registered not-for-profit organisation, industry participation fees enable us to provide a free, independent and alternative dispute resolution service that benefits everyone.' ALSO READ: Ombud calls for updates to legislation to protect online consumers This year the CGSO surpassed the 2 000-participant mark, with 2 175 paid-up participants, representing a 19% year-on-year increase. How to lodge a complaint at the CGSO Consumers who want to lodge a complaint can download the CGSO mobile complaints app from the App Store or Google Play. Alternatively, you can call the CGSO on 0860 000 272, send an email to [email protected], or visit the CGSO website at to submit a claim.
The Citizen
4 days ago
- The Citizen
Lessons about implied warranty of quality and right of return
Although it sounds easy enough to understand, there are some conditions attached to the implied warranty of quality. The annual report of the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud contains two important lessons on warranty of quality and your right to return goods. According to the report, a consumer noticed that the washing machine she bought was leaking after some time, which clearly demonstrated a defect. The leakage further triggered electrical faults, causing power outages and eventually led to the washing machine breaking down. The consumer contacted the store where she bought the washing machine and asked for a replacement or a full refund. However, the store rejected her claim on the basis that a third party, who was not authorised by the store, worked on it in an attempt to detect the fault. ALSO READ: How to guarantee that you understand the warranty According to the supplier's warranty terms and conditions, engaging a non-authorised technician during the warranty period constitutes a breach of the policy. As a result, the supplier did not honour the claim. The consumer wanted to have the washing machine replaced or a refund in line with section 56(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that provides for an implied warranty of six months when a consumer can exercise the right to receive a repair, replacement or refund for goods not meeting the standards set out in section 55 of the CPA. The consumer must choose the outcome. Implied warranty time was over In this case, the consumer complained to the store after the six-month period provided for in section 56(2) of the CPA was over. Therefore, the store assessed the consumer's claim in terms of the supplier's standard warranty and related provisions. The store maintained that the consumer's decision to involve a non-authorised third party voided the supplier's warranty condition. Although the complainant argued that no repairs were done and that the technician merely did an assessment of the electrical components, this did not alter the supplier's position. The CGSO could therefore also not make a recommendation due to the breach of the supplier's terms and conditions. What do we learn from this complaint? Tread carefully when having appliances repaired that may have a supplier warranty attached. Always seek direction from the store before attempting to fix the problem independently. Engaging third-party service providers without explicit authorisation may result, as in this case, in a breach, which could void any warranty. ALSO READ: Devil is in the detail if you want to return defective goods Your general right of return In another case, a consumer bought a pair of shoes for her child, only to realise they were one size too small. She believed she had the right to exchange the shoes for a larger pair and went to the store to ask them to exchange the shoes. However, the store refused because it said the shoes displayed signs of wear and tear, which voided their return policy. The consumer then complained to the CGSO. The store responded to the CGSO, saying that the shoes were returned in a noticeably used condition. Staff observed significant wear and tear on the soles and the leather uppers, indicating that the shoes had been worn extensively. Given the condition of the shoes, the store declined the return as they could not be resold. The consumer said in her complaint to the CGSO that she wanted the shoes exchanged or a full refund. ALSO READ: Guarantees, warranties and everything you need to know as a consumer Misconception that you can always return everything The CGSO says this case underscores a key misconception about the CPA, specifically that all purchases come with a general right of return. 'While a consumer enjoys the right to return goods that do not meet the standards of section 55 of the CPA, that right is triggered only if the goods are found to be defective.' In terms of section 18 of the CPA, a consumer has the right to examine goods before completing a transaction. While certain stores may provide for an exchange or return as part of their store policy, this is not a guaranteed right. It is also important to remember that the CPA does not place an obligation on stores to accept returns in cases where: Consumers change their mind; The product does not fit or is uncomfortable; The item has been used and is no longer in its original condition. Unfortunately, the CGSO could not make a recommendation as there were clear signs of use on the shoes despite the fact that they were too small. What do we learn from this complaint? The CGSO points out that a change of heart or incorrect sizing, especially after use, does not entitle you to a refund or exchange under the CPA. Consumers must understand the supplier's return policy and ensure that a product fits correctly before leaving the store to avoid disappointment if a return is rejected.
IOL News
06-08-2025
- IOL News
Consumer rights upheld: Tribunal orders vehicle dealership to refund consumer R146,000 for defective car
The National Consumer Tribunal has ruled that a vehicle dealership must refund a consumer after they purchased a defective vehicle. Image: Supplied The National Consumer Tribunal has ruled in favour of a consumer who purchased a defective second-hand vehicle, ordering Nolly Motors (Pty) Ltd to refund R146,000 and collect the faulty car at its own expense. The ruling follows an investigation by the National Consumer Commission (NCC) after the consumer lodged a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). According to the NCC, the consumer bought a used 2013 Audi A4 from Nolly Motors on 13 April 2022. Two days after collecting the vehicle on 15 April, the consumer began experiencing defects and requested the supplier to repair the car, a request that went unattended. On 29 April 2022, the consumer informed Nolly Motors of the intention to cancel the sales agreement and request a full refund. The supplier refused, leaving the consumer to cover the cost of repairs. The Tribunal found that Nolly Motors had contravened sections 56(2)(a) and (b), read with 55(2)(a) to (c) of the CPA. These sections provide that goods must be of good quality, free of defects, and suitable for their intended purpose. In addition, section 56(2)(b) states that within six months of delivery, consumers may return defective goods without penalty. The Tribunal ruled that 'the supplier must refund the consumer the full purchase price of R146,000.00 and collect the vehicle from the consumer at its own expense.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ While the NCC also alleged that Nolly Motors used unfair contract terms including the 'as is' and 'without warranty' clauses, this was not adjudicated because the complaint was filed after the three-year limitation period outlined in section 116 of the CPA. However, the Tribunal held that such terms do not override the rights afforded to consumers by the CPA. 'The NCC welcomes this judgment of the Tribunal, as it reaffirms the importance of suppliers to respect consumer rights in the marketplace,' said Acting Commissioner Hardin Ratshisusu. 'This judgment should serve as a deterrent to other suppliers from engaging in similar conduct.' The NCC urged consumers who face similar issues to lodge complaints and familiarise themselves with the rights guaranteed under the CPA. THE MERCURY
