- Faith Makhabo was misled into paying R500 000 for a Tammy Taylor Nails franchise that could not legally be offered in South Africa.
- The court found that Peet Viljoen, acting on behalf of Tammy Taylor SA Holdings, made false claims about the company’s rights to license the brand.
- The High Court granted summary judgment in Makhabo’s favour, ordering the return of her money with interest and legal costs.
Faith Makhabo was like many South Africans, hopeful, ambitious, and ready to build a business that could change her life. The beauty industry seemed a perfect fit. When she was offered a franchise opportunity with Tammy Taylor Nails SA, a brand she had come to admire, the deal seemed too good to pass up.
She sat across from Peet Viljoen, a man who claimed to represent Tammy Taylor SA Holdings, the South African company said to hold licensing rights from the American beauty brand Tammy Taylor Nails USA. Viljoen’s pitch was polished: pay R500 000 as a deposit, and she could join one of the fastest-growing names in the beauty industry.
Trusting his assurances and eager to secure her place, Makhabo paid the amount. But within days, the dream started to unravel.
Behind the brand: A broken license and hidden facts
What Makhabo didn’t know at the time, and what the court later confirmed, was that Tammy Taylor SA Holdings had lost its legal right to represent the US-based brand more than a year earlier. The license agreement between Tammy Taylor SA and the American brand had been terminated in February 2021. Even more damning, the US company had sent a formal cease-and-desist letter in May 2021 demanding that the South African company stop using the brand name and trademarks.
This critical detail had never been disclosed to Makhabo. Instead, she was presented with glossy brochures and big promises, only to discover, after her R500 000 had changed hands, that the entire deal was built on shaky ground. When she demanded a refund, the company refused. And so she turned to the courts.
Viljoen and the franchise that never was
In their defence, both Viljoen and Tammy Taylor SA insisted that the R500 000 was a "deposit" for a franchise agreement that Makhabo allegedly reneged on. But when pressed, they could produce no franchise agreement. No breakdown of the full price. No copy of any valid license from the U.S. parent company. Nothing that could explain why they accepted such a large payment under circumstances they must have known were not legally viable.
Viljoen, who had represented the company throughout, tried to distance himself during the proceedings. He claimed he no longer represented Tammy Taylor SA and therefore could not be held personally responsible. But Acting Judge MPD Chabedi saw through the attempt.
“In these circumstances,” the judge wrote, “Viljoen’s attempt to separate himself from Tammy Taylor SA does not appear bona fide but devised solely to avoid liability.”
A sharp legal rebuke
The judgment did more than just award Makhabo her money back. It laid bare the obligations of those who sell business opportunities to act with integrity, transparency, and respect for the law. Viljoen’s failure to disclose the revoked license, coupled with the company’s refusal to refund the money once the truth came to light, left the court with little patience.
The judge found that Viljoen’s representations were materially false and unlawful, and that Tammy Taylor SA had been unduly enriched by accepting R500 000 when it had no right to license a franchise. The judge further Neither party could present a genuine, lawful defence.
Makhabo’s application for summary judgment, a legal route that bypasses a full trial when there is no real dispute, was granted. The court ordered the defendants to repay the R500 000 with interest from September 2022 and cover all legal costs.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
