The question of whether residential lease agreements fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) has long been the subject of legal debate. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has now provided important clarification in Els v Venter and Another (449/2024) [2025] ZASCA 163 (27 October 2025), where it considered whether a residential lease concluded between private parties constitutes a transaction “in the ordinary course of business” for purposes of the CPA.

The CPA is primarily aimed at promoting fairness, transparency, and equity in consumer transactions. Its application is generally confined to agreements involving the supply of goods or services in the ordinary course of business. A key point of contention has been whether the letting of residential property constitutes such a service, and whether all landlords can be regarded as operating within a business context.

Before this judgment, it was widely accepted that residential leases could fall within the scope of the CPA, particularly where landlords were engaged in property letting as a commercial enterprise. In such instances, tenants were able to rely on the Act’s protections, including the right to fair and reasonable contractual terms, cancellation rights, and safeguards against unfair or deceptive practices. However, uncertainty persisted in scenarios involving private individuals who let property on a once-off or ad hoc basis.

In Els v Venter, the SCA clarified that residential leases do not automatically fall within the CPA’s scope. The Court emphasised that the decisive factor is whether the landlord is acting in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, a landlord who derives income through the systematic letting of multiple properties, such as a property investor or developer, will, in most cases, fall within the ambit of the CPA. By contrast, a private individual letting a single property on a casual or isolated basis may fall outside its application.

The judgment underscores that the applicability of the CPA depends not merely on the existence of a lease agreement, but on the context in which it is concluded. In other words, the nature, frequency, and purpose of the letting activity are determinative of whether the Act applies.

The practical implication of the decision is that both landlords and tenants must approach residential leases with a clear understanding of the legal framework. Landlords who lease multiple properties or operate in a commercial capacity should ensure that their lease agreements comply with the CPA where applicable. Tenants, on the other hand, should not assume that CPA protections apply automatically, but should assess whether the landlord is acting in the ordinary course of business.

Ultimately, Els v Venter confirms that residential leases are not categorically excluded from the CPA. Rather, their inclusion is conditional and fact-dependent, requiring a careful assessment of the landlord’s role and the nature of the transaction. The judgment provides much-needed clarity, while reinforcing the principle that the CPA applies only where its underlying commercial rationale is present.