Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 54521 · R. 7380 · 2026-04-15
CPA opt-out registry regulations effective immediately — direct marketers must register now
Effective from
15 Apr 2026
The Consumer Protection Act Amendment Regulations, 2026 (GN R. 7380 in GG 54521) operationalise the section 11 opt-out registry with no transitional period. Every business conducting direct marketing in South Africa must now register on the National Consumer Commission's opt-out registry before undertaking any direct marketing. Registered direct marketers must cleanse their databases monthly against the registry to remove consumers who have registered a pre-emptive block, and may not contact any consumer who has opted out. Initial registration costs R2,574, annual renewal R1,930.50, and cleansing R0.12 per data entry (2026 tariffs). The regulations also introduce new definitions for 'cleansing', 'direct marketer', 'electronic communication recipient', and 'pre-emptive block', substitute the NCC complaint form, and add three new annexures covering fees, the consumer pre-emptive block form, and the direct marketer registration form.
Who is affected
All businesses conducting direct marketing (electronic communications promoting goods or services)Marketing service providers and agenciesE-commerce, retail, telecommunications, and advertising sectorsConsumer protection and compliance practitionersIn-house legal and marketing compliance teams What this means for practitioners
Register immediately on the NCC opt-out registry by completing the Annexure P form and paying the R2,574 initial registration fee — no direct marketing may be conducted without registration
Implement monthly database-cleansing processes against the registry to remove consumers who have registered pre-emptive blocks
Update internal marketing policies and procedures to prohibit contact with any consumer who has opted out
Ensure all electronic marketing communications are identifiable by the recipient, including the marketer's name, electronic address, physical address, and contact number
Budget for annual renewal fees (R1,930.50) and per-entry cleansing fees (R0.12 per data entry)
Brief marketing teams and third-party service providers on the new obligations immediately
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg · 2026-04-15
Mfolozi v Farm Home Owners Association and Others
A homeowners' association obtained a monetary judgment of approximately R13,915 in the Magistrates' Court and proceeded to have an immovable property valued at R380,000 declared executable and sold in execution. The property owner applied to the High Court to set aside the sale, contending that no formal application to declare the property executable had been brought and that no judicial oversight had been exercised in the Magistrates' Court process.
The court held: The court held that judicial oversight under Jaftha principles applies to execution of both residential and non-residential immovable property, not only residential property under rule 43A. It found that the monetary judgment and the executability order are distinct matters, so the applicant's failure to rescind or appeal the monetary judgment did not bar a challenge to the executability order. The court noted apparent irregularities — no formal application to declare the property executable appeared on the Magistrates' Court record — and questioned whether a Magistrates' Court can declare executable property whose value significantly exceeds its monetary jurisdictional limit. The application to set aside the sale was dismissed, but a three-month interim interdict preventing transfer of the property was granted to allow the applicant to pursue proper remedies in the Magistrates' Court.
Legal impact: This judgment develops execution law in three respects. First, it extends the requirement of judicial oversight beyond residential property to all immovable property subject to execution — creditors can no longer assume a lighter process for non-residential immovable property. Second, it clarifies that debtors may challenge an executability order independently of the underlying monetary judgment, lowering the procedural barrier for debtors. Third, it raises a significant jurisdictional question: whether Magistrates' Courts can declare executable property whose value exceeds their monetary jurisdiction. If followed, this could force creditors to approach the High Court for execution against higher-value immovable property, adding cost and complexity to debt recovery.
Who is affected
Creditors and debt recovery practitioners using Magistrates' Courts for execution against immovable propertyHomeowners' associations and body corporates enforcing levy debtsProperty owners facing execution proceedingsPurchasers at sales in executionConveyancing practitioners handling transfers arising from execution salesCivil litigation and civil procedure practitioners What this means for practitioners
Review all pending Magistrates' Court execution proceedings against immovable property to ensure a formal application for declaratory executability was filed and judicial oversight was exercised
For non-residential immovable property, ensure the execution process includes judicial oversight — do not assume rule 43A is the only trigger
Where the value of immovable property significantly exceeds the Magistrates' Court monetary jurisdiction, consider whether the application to declare executable should be brought in the High Court to avoid jurisdictional challenge
Advise execution purchasers of the risk that transfers may be interdicted where the underlying executability process is irregular
Monitor whether this jurisdictional question is taken on appeal or followed in other divisions