Competition Commission v Catha Silkscreen Printers CC and Others (CR086Jun17; CR088Jun17) [2020] ZACT 97 (30 April 2020)

Competition Commission v Catha Silkscreen Printers CC and Others (CR086Jun17; CR088Jun17) [2020] ZACT 97 (30 April 2020)

The Tribunal found that the Commission failed to discharge its onus to prove that the respondents entered into an agreement or engaged in a concerted practice to fix prices or tender collusively. The evidence showed that similarities in pricing for a small number of items resulted from individual assistance provided by Ms Gloria Nakanyane, not from collusion among the respondents. There was no evidence of any meeting, arrangement, or understanding between the respondents to fix prices or tender collusively. The Tribunal accepted the respondents' explanations and found that the Commission did not provide sufficient evidence to support its allegations. Accordingly, the application was...

Citation
[2020] ZACT 97
Parties
Applicant: Competition Commission; Respondent: Catha Silkscreen Printers CC; Respondent: Melemo Trading CC; Respondent: Lounge 848 CC; Respondent: Nakanyane Business Solutions CC; Respondent: Litabe and Seema Trading CC
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Case Number
CR086Jun17; CR088Jun17
Procedural Posture
Complaint Referral / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Andreas Wessels, Mondo Mazwai, Enver Daniels
Legal Topics
Collusive Tendering, Price Fixing, Horizontal Agreements, Administrative Penalty, Onus of Proof
Competition Law Collusive Tendering Price Fixing Horizontal Agreements Administrative Penalty Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Competition Commission

Applicant

Catha Silkscreen Printers CC

Respondent

Melemo Trading CC

Respondent

Lounge 848 CC

Respondent

Nakanyane Business Solutions CC

Respondent

Litabe and Seema Trading CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint Referral / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents entered into an agreement or engaged in a concerted practice to fix prices and/or tender collusively in contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) and (iii) of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the similarities in bid prices and supplier letters constitute evidence of collusion.
  3. 3 Whether the Commission discharged its onus to prove the alleged contraventions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Commission failed to discharge its onus to prove that the respondents entered into an agreement or engaged in a concerted practice to fix prices or tender collusively. The evidence showed that similarities in pricing for a small number of items resulted from individual assistance provided by Ms Gloria Nakanyane, not from collusion among the respondents. There was no evidence of any meeting, arrangement, or understanding between the respondents to fix prices or tender collusively. The Tribunal accepted the respondents' explanations and found that the Commission did not provide sufficient evidence to support its allegations. Accordingly, the application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The case against all the respondents is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.