New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs (21/CR/Mar11) [2011] ZACT 66; [2011] 2 CPLR 375 (CT) (5 September 2011)

New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs (21/CR/Mar11) [2011] ZACT 66; [2011] 2 CPLR 375 (CT) (5 September 2011)

The Tribunal found that Mr Jacobs' complaint referral failed to disclose a cause of action under the Competition Act. The allegations regarding an intermediate merger, breach of a consent order, and abuse of dominance were not supported by sufficient facts, rendering the referral vague and embarrassing. The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, including referral back to the Commission, compensation for damages, and interdictory relief, as these are not provided for under section 58(1) of the Act. The Tribunal further found that Mr Jacobs had not established the relevant market, market shares, or facts necessary to sustain an abuse of dominance claim. The...

Citation
[2011] ZACT 66
Parties
Applicant: New Reclamation Group (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Gerhardus Johannes Jacobs
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2011
Case Number
21/CR/Mar11
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Order on Application to Strike Out Complaint Referral
Outcome
Application to strike out complaint referral upheld; complaint referral struck out; costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
Takalani Madima, Andreas Wessels, Andiswa Ndoni
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominance, Exclusionary Conduct, Intermediate Merger Notification, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Compensation for Damages, Costs Award
Competition Law Abuse of Dominance Exclusionary Conduct Intermediate Merger Notification Jurisdiction of Tribunal Compensation for Damages 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Reclamation Group (Proprietary) Limited

Applicant

Gerhardus Johannes Jacobs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Order on Application to Strike Out Complaint Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint referral by Mr Jacobs discloses a cause of action under the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Mr Jacobs, including referral back to the Commission, compensation, and interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether the complaint referral is vague, embarrassing, or excipiable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Mr Jacobs' complaint referral failed to disclose a cause of action under the Competition Act. The allegations regarding an intermediate merger, breach of a consent order, and abuse of dominance were not supported by sufficient facts, rendering the referral vague and embarrassing. The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, including referral back to the Commission, compensation for damages, and interdictory relief, as these are not provided for under section 58(1) of the Act. The Tribunal further found that Mr Jacobs had not established the relevant market, market shares, or facts necessary to sustain an abuse of dominance claim. The...

Court Disposition

Application to strike out complaint referral upheld; complaint referral struck out; costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 9, 13 and 22.1 to 22.3 of the respondent's founding affidavit are struck out as excipiable and not sustaining a cause of action.
  • Paragraphs 17 and 23 of the respondent's founding affidavit are struck out as excipiable and not sustaining a cause of action.