Premier Foods v Manoim NO (20147/2014) [2015] ZASCA 159; 2016 (1) SA 445 (SCA); [2016] 1 All SA 40 (SCA); [2015] 2 CPLR 335 (SCA) (4 November 2015)

Premier Foods v Manoim NO (20147/2014) [2015] ZASCA 159; 2016 (1) SA 445 (SCA); [2016] 1 All SA 40 (SCA); [2015] 2 CPLR 335 (SCA) (4 November 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Tribunal lacked the power to make a declaration against Premier Foods because Premier was not cited as a respondent in the complaint referrals and no relief was sought against it. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to matters properly referred to it, and the absence of citation is fatal to its power to make any order against Premier. The declaration made by the Tribunal is therefore a nullity and does not require formal setting aside before it can be disregarded by a court. Consequently, neither the Tribunal nor its Chairperson can lawfully issue a certificate under section 65(6)(b) of the Competition Act in respect of Premier...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 159
Parties
Appellant: Premier Foods (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Norman Manoim NO; Respondent: The Competition Tribunal; Respondent: The Competition Commission; Respondent: The Trustees for the Time Being of the Children’s Resource Centre Trust; Respondent: The Trustees for the Time Being of the Black Sash Trust; Respondent: Congress of South African Trade Unions; Respondent: National Consumer Forum; Respondent: Tasneem Bassier; Respondent: Brian Mphahlele; Respondent: Trevor Ronald George Benjamin; Respondent: Nomthandazo Mvana; Respondent: Faried Albertu
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2015
Case Number
20147/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Provincial Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Order of the court a quo set aside and substituted.
Judges
Maya, Shongwe, Petse, Gorven, Baartman
Legal Topics
Corporate Leniency Policy, Prohibited Practices, Cartel Activity, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Declaration Nullity, Damages Claims
Competition Law Civil Procedure Corporate Leniency Policy Prohibited Practices Cartel Activity Jurisdiction of Tribunal Declaration Nullity Damages Claims

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

Parties

Premier Foods (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Norman Manoim NO

Respondent

The Competition Tribunal

Respondent

The Competition Commission

Respondent

The Trustees for the Time Being of the Children’s Resource Centre Trust

Respondent

The Trustees for the Time Being of the Black Sash Trust

Respondent

Congress of South African Trade Unions

Respondent

National Consumer Forum

Respondent

Tasneem Bassier

Respondent

Brian Mphahlele

Respondent

Trevor Ronald George Benjamin

Respondent

Nomthandazo Mvana

Respondent

Faried Albertu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Provincial Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Tribunal had the power to declare Premier Foods' conduct a prohibited practice when Premier was not cited as a respondent in the complaint referral.
  2. 2 Whether the declaration made by the Tribunal is a nullity and requires setting aside before it can be disregarded.
  3. 3 Whether a notice under section 65(6)(b) of the Competition Act can lawfully be issued in respect of Premier Foods.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Tribunal lacked the power to make a declaration against Premier Foods because Premier was not cited as a respondent in the complaint referrals and no relief was sought against it. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to matters properly referred to it, and the absence of citation is fatal to its power to make any order against Premier. The declaration made by the Tribunal is therefore a nullity and does not require formal setting aside before it can be disregarded by a court. Consequently, neither the Tribunal nor its Chairperson can lawfully issue a certificate under section 65(6)(b) of the Competition Act in respect of Premier...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Order of the court a quo set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including those consequent on the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo dismissing the application with costs is set aside and substituted with: 'Declaring that neither the first nor the second respondent can lawfully issue a notice in terms of section 65(6)(b) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998, certifying that the applicant’s conduct has been found to be a...