Tshwane Metro Council / Pretoria Civil Action and Another / 978, 1039
Ruling of the : ASA Directorate
In the matter between:
Pretoria Civil Action & Another	Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality	Respondent

05 May 2005

Pretoria Civil Action and Mr Dreyer lodged consumer complaints against the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality’s television commercial that was flighted on SABC 2 on 27 March 2005.

The commercial features, inter alia, landmarks found in Pretoria and surrounding areas and towards the end of the commercial a voice over states “City of Tshwane, Africa’s leading capital city”.

COMPLAINTS
In essence, the complainants are of the view that the commercial is misleading as:

• The official database of place names of the South African Geographical Place Names Council does not recognise the name "Tshwane" or "City of Tshwane". However, the advertising campaign creates the impression that it does exist. Only the name "Pretoria" is recognised and contained in this database.
  
  
• The Metro Council does not have the official authority to change the name of Pretoria to Tshwane. The power rests with the South African Geographical Place Names Council and the application for the change has not been processed by them yet. Mr Joel Netshitenzhe, who is the national government spokesperson, has confirmed in the media that Government still recognises the name Pretoria only as capital.
  
  
• Any reference to the name Tshwane as capital city is therefore misleading and incorrect.

RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE CODE OF ADVERTISING PRACTICE
In light of the complaints Clause 4.2.1 of Section II (Misleading claims) of the Code was taken into account.

RESPONSE
The respondent disputes the allegations in the complaints on the following grounds:

• The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, a metropolitan municipality with legal capacity, was established in terms of Notice 6770 of 2000, as amended, published in terms of the provisions of section 12(i) of the Local Government Municipal Structures Act (Act 117 of 1998).
  
  
• Approximately fourteen municipalities were disestablished, amongst others the City Council of Pretoria.
  
  
• In applying the reasonable man test, there is no impression created that "Tshwane" or "City of Tshwane" exists in the database of place names of the South African Geographical Place Names Council and/or the respondent has the authority to change names of cities.
  
  
• It cannot promote any single geographical area, which formed part of the now defunct local authority, disregarding other areas within the fourteen disestablished local authorities when marketing itself.
  
  
• The commercial in question is honest and is not misleading.

ASA DIRECTORATE RULING
At a meeting held on 21 April 2005 the Directorate considered the relevant documentation submitted by the respective parties.

The statement “The City of Tshwane, Africa’s leading capital city” implies that the commercial specifically refers to Pretoria and does not include other areas. There are images of Pretoria, and a reference to the “capital city”.

A hypothetical reasonable consumer would therefore understand the commercial to refer to Pretoria, the capital city, as Tshwane, and not to the whole area that falls within the boundaries of City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality.

It is, ex facie, agreed that currently the name of the capital city of South Africa is still Pretoria and not Tshwane. The Directorate accepts the respondent’s submission that it represents various areas and can not only market one. It can not, however, incorrectly refer to the “City of Tshwane” as the capital city in doing so.

The Directorate is therefore of the opinion that the commercial is misleading as it appears through the use of the word “capital” that the city being referred to is Pretoria, and that Tshwane is now the new name of the capital of South Africa.

Based on the above the commercial is misleading because of its ambiguity. It is therefore in contravention of Clause 4.2.1 of Section II of the Code.

Given the above finding:

• The commercial must be withdrawn;
  
  
• The process to withdraw the commercial must be actioned with immediate effect on receipt of the ruling;
  
  
• The withdrawal of the commercial must be completed within the deadlines stipulated by Clause 15.3 of the Procedural Guide; and
  
  
• The commercial may not be used again in its current format.

The complaints are upheld.