Mpho Mkathnini and Others and Glaxosmithkline SA (Pty) Ltd / Glaxo Group Ltd (34/CR/Apr04) [2004] ZACT 48 (23 July 2004)

Mpho Mkathnini and Others and Glaxosmithkline SA (Pty) Ltd / Glaxo Group Ltd (34/CR/Apr04) [2004] ZACT 48 (23 July 2004)

The Tribunal found that the applicants had satisfactorily explained the delay in filing their complaint referral, providing a full and detailed account of the causes and duration of the delay. The Tribunal accepted that the operative date for filing should be when the applicants received the settlement agreement, as they were entitled to review its terms before deciding on further action. The Tribunal rejected the respondents' arguments regarding prospects of success and prejudice, noting that the applicants were not party to the settlement and had not been given an opportunity to settle the complaint to their satisfaction. The Tribunal held that the balance of convenience favoured...

Citation
[2004] ZACT 48
Parties
Applicant: Mpho Makhathnini; Applicant: Nelisiwe Mthethwa; Applicant: Musa Msomi; Applicant: Elijah Paul Musoke; Applicant: Tom Myers; Applicant: AIDS Healthcare Foundation Limited; Respondent: Glaxosmithkline South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Glaxo Group Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2004
Case Number
34/CR/Apr04
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Complaint Referral
Outcome
Application for condonation granted; costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
D. Lewis
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Complaint Referral, Settlement Agreement, Good Cause, Costs Award
Competition Law Condonation Late Filing Complaint Referral Settlement Agreement Good Cause Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Makhathnini

Applicant

Nelisiwe Mthethwa

Applicant

Musa Msomi

Applicant

Elijah Paul Musoke

Applicant

Tom Myers

Applicant

AIDS Healthcare Foundation Limited

Applicant

Glaxosmithkline South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Glaxo Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Complaint Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of their complaint referral.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were bound by the settlement agreement concluded between the Commission and the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents should bear the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement and opposition to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicants had satisfactorily explained the delay in filing their complaint referral, providing a full and detailed account of the causes and duration of the delay. The Tribunal accepted that the operative date for filing should be when the applicants received the settlement agreement, as they were entitled to review its terms before deciding on further action. The Tribunal rejected the respondents' arguments regarding prospects of success and prejudice, noting that the applicants were not party to the settlement and had not been given an opportunity to settle the complaint to their satisfaction. The Tribunal held that the balance of convenience favoured...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted; costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • The applicants' late filing of the complaint referral to the Tribunal is condoned subject to clause 2 of this Order.
  • The applicants shall file their complaint referral with the Tribunal within 20 business days from the date of this Order.