Mainstreet 2 t/a New United and Others v Norvatis (SA) (Pty) Ltd [2000] ZACT 48 (29 November 2000)
The Tribunal held that acceptance of a complaint by the Competition Commission is a prerequisite for a valid complaint under the Competition Act and for locus standi to bring an interim relief application. The Tribunal, as a creature of statute, is bound by the Commission's Rules, which have the force of law. Rule...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] ZACT 48
- Parties
- Applicant: Mainstreet 2 (Pty) Ltd t/a New United; Applicant: Pharmaceutical Distributors (Pty) Ltd (UPD); Applicant: Natal Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Durban; Applicant: Midlands Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Pietermaritzburg; Applicant: East Cape Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Eastern Cape; Applicant: Free State Buying Association Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Bloemfontein (KEMCO); Applicant: Pharmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd; Applicant: AGM Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a DOCMED; Applicant: L’Etangs Wholesale Chemists CC t/a L’Etangs; Applicant: Resepkor (Pty) Ltd t/a Reskor Pharmaceutical Wholesalers; Respondent: Novartis (SA) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Roche Products (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Boehringer Ingelheim (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bristol Myers Squibb (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Abbott Laboratories SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Schering-Berlin (Pty) Ltd t/a Berlimed; Respondent: Sanofi-Synthelabo (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MSD (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bayer (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eli Lilly SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rolab (Pty) Ltd A Division of Novartis SA; Respondent: Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd; Respondent: International Healthcare Distributors (Pty) Ltd (IHD)
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 November 2000
- Case Number
- 25/IR/C/Aug00
- Procedural Posture
- Interim Relief Application / Order and Reasons
- Outcome
- Application for interim relief dismissed for lack of locus standi.
- Judges
- Norman Manoim, S. Zilwa, P. Maponya
- Legal Topics
- Interim Relief, Locus Standi, Competition Act Section 59, Competition Act Section 44, Commission Rules Acceptance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mainstreet 2 (Pty) Ltd t/a New United
Applicant
Pharmaceutical Distributors (Pty) Ltd (UPD)
Applicant
Natal Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Durban
Applicant
Midlands Wholesale Chemists (Pty) Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Pietermaritzburg
Applicant
East Cape Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Eastern Cape
Applicant
Free State Buying Association Ltd t/a Alpha Pharm Bloemfontein (KEMCO)
Applicant
Pharmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Applicant
AGM Pharmaceuticals Ltd t/a DOCMED
Applicant
L’Etangs Wholesale Chemists CC t/a L’Etangs
Applicant
Resepkor (Pty) Ltd t/a Reskor Pharmaceutical Wholesalers
Applicant
Novartis (SA) (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Roche Products (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Boehringer Ingelheim (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Bristol Myers Squibb (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Abbott Laboratories SA (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Schering-Berlin (Pty) Ltd t/a Berlimed
Respondent
Sanofi-Synthelabo (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
MSD (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Bayer (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Eli Lilly SA (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Wyeth SA (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Rolab (Pty) Ltd A Division of Novartis SA
Respondent
Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd
Respondent
International Healthcare Distributors (Pty) Ltd (IHD)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Order and Reasons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring an interim relief application under section 59 of the Competition Act before the Competition Commission had accepted their complaint.
- 2 Whether acceptance of a complaint by the Competition Commission is a prerequisite for a valid complaint and for standing to seek interim relief.
- 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to disregard Commission Rules alleged to be ultra vires.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal held that acceptance of a complaint by the Competition Commission is a prerequisite for a valid complaint under the Competition Act and for locus standi to bring an interim relief application. The Tribunal, as a creature of statute, is bound by the Commission's Rules, which have the force of law. Rule 17(2) requires the Commission to accept a complaint before it attains legal status. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to declare the Rules ultra vires; only the High Court may do so. Accordingly, the application for interim relief was launched prematurely, as the complaint had not yet been accepted at the time of application. The applicants therefore lacked standing, and...
Court Disposition
Application for interim relief dismissed for lack of locus standi.
Orders
- The respondents who were parties to the dismissal application (first, second, third, fourth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth) are awarded costs of that application as specified.
- In the case of the sixth respondent, costs of one attorney are awarded.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment