Tribunal throws out Gauteng woman’s claim over alleged mouldy Rhodes juice

Tribunal dismisses woman’s compensation claim over alleged mouldy Rhodes juice

A Gauteng woman’s bid for compensation after allegedly drinking mouldy fruit juice has been dismissed by the National Consumer Tribunal, highlighting the limits of South Africa’s consumer protection system when it comes to personal injury claims.

Aluwani Caroline Madia approached the tribunal seeking damages for pain and suffering after she said she consumed a one-litre carton of Rhodes Tropical Juice, bought from a Pick n Pay store in Kelvin, Johannesburg, in January 2024.

According to Madia, she noticed mould inside the carton after drinking the juice and later experienced vomiting and diarrhoea, symptoms she said also affected her daughter.

What happened to the juice sample

The juice manufacturer, RFG Foods, arranged for the carton to be couriered from Gauteng to its juice production facility in Wellington, Western Cape, for testing. However, the company said the carton arrived too damaged for a seal integrity test to be conducted.

To assess whether there had been a production fault, retention samples from the same manufacturing batch were tested. RFG Foods reported that those samples met quality specifications and showed no irregularities.

On this basis, the company denied liability, saying there was no evidence linking the alleged mould to a manufacturing defect. It nonetheless offered Madia a R300 mobile voucher, redeemable at Shoprite or Checkers stores.

From the NCC to the tribunal

Unhappy with the outcome, Madia escalated the matter to the National Consumer Commission (NCC), seeking compensation for pain and suffering. In June 2025, the NCC issued a notice of non-referral a step usually taken when a complaint lacks sufficient merit, falls outside the commission’s jurisdiction, or is deemed frivolous.

Madia then turned to the National Consumer Tribunal, applying for permission to pursue the case directly and requesting damages for emotional distress and physical suffering.

Why the tribunal said no

In its ruling, the tribunal found that Madia’s application faced both technical and legal hurdles.

One major issue was that the manufacturer had been incorrectly cited as “Rhodes Quality (Pty) Ltd”, a company that does not exist. Tribunal member Dr Maria Peenze said the tribunal does not have the authority to fix such errors on behalf of an applicant.

But even beyond the paperwork problem, the tribunal made it clear that it could not grant the kind of compensation Madia was seeking.

“The tribunal has the power to order a refund of the purchase price or a replacement of the goods,” Peenze said. “However, it does not have the jurisdiction to award compensation for pain and suffering.”

She explained that claims for personal injury and emotional distress amount to general damages, which fall under the authority of the civil courts not the consumer tribunal.

A wider lesson for consumers

No costs order was made against Madia, and the tribunal noted that she remains free to submit a fresh application correcting the citation error or to pursue a civil lawsuit if she believes she can prove harm caused by a defective product.

The case has sparked discussion online about the expectations many consumers have of the Consumer Protection Act. While the law offers strong remedies for faulty goods such as refunds or replacements it does not automatically cover medical harm or emotional distress.

For legal experts, the ruling serves as a reminder that consumer tribunals are designed to resolve disputes over products, not to act as courts for injury claims, a distinction that many South Africans only discover once a case reaches this stage.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com