Mybico v Lewis NO and Others (59CACFeb06) [2006] ZACAC 7; [2006] 2 CPLR 459 (CAC) (20 June 2006)

Mybico v Lewis NO and Others (59CACFeb06) [2006] ZACAC 7; [2006] 2 CPLR 459 (CAC) (20 June 2006)

The application for postponement was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its repeated delays and lack of preparedness. The court found no evidence of delaying tactics by the respondents and noted that extraordinary steps had been taken to accommodate the applicant, including condoning procedural defects due to lack of legal representation. On the merits, the court held that the applicant did not attend the hearing and thus could not claim a breach of audi alteram partem. There was no evidence of bias or failure to apply mind by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's written objection despite its late submission and rejected...

Citation
[2006] ZACAC 7
Parties
Applicant: MYBICO; Respondent: David Lewis N.O.; Respondent: The Competition Tribunal; Respondent: Vodafone Group PLC; Respondent: Venfin (Pty) Limited
Court
Competition Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2006
Case Number
59CACFeb06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review and Postponement
Outcome
Application for postponement and main application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Davis, Mailula, Patel
Legal Topics
Merger Clearance, Audi Alteram Partem, Postponement, Black Economic Empowerment
Competition Law Civil Procedure Merger Clearance Audi Alteram Partem Postponement Black Economic Empowerment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MYBICO

Applicant

David Lewis N.O.

Respondent

The Competition Tribunal

Respondent

Vodafone Group PLC

Respondent

Venfin (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review and Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's request for postponement of the hearing should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the Competition Tribunal's approval of the merger between third and fourth respondents should be reviewed and set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal complied with the audi alteram partem principle in considering the applicant's objection.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for postponement was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its repeated delays and lack of preparedness. The court found no evidence of delaying tactics by the respondents and noted that extraordinary steps had been taken to accommodate the applicant, including condoning procedural defects due to lack of legal representation. On the merits, the court held that the applicant did not attend the hearing and thus could not claim a breach of audi alteram partem. There was no evidence of bias or failure to apply mind by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's written objection despite its late submission and rejected...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement and main application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The procedural defects in the application are condoned due to lack of legal representation.
  • The application for postponement is dismissed.