Replication Technology Group (Pty) Ltd v Gallo Africa Limited (92/IR/Sep07) [2007] ZACT 99; [2008] 1 CPLR 77 (CT) (10 December 2007)

Replication Technology Group (Pty) Ltd v Gallo Africa Limited (92/IR/Sep07) [2007] ZACT 99; [2008] 1 CPLR 77 (CT) (10 December 2007)

The Tribunal found that clause 13 of the Sale Agreement is a restraint of trade commonly associated with the sale of a business and is limited in both duration and scope. The restraint does not exclude RTG from the market entirely and is commercially justified to protect the purchaser's investment and goodwill. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Nedschroef, noting that the restraint here is not a hard-core market division but a standard commercial term. The evidence presented by RTG was found to be unreliable and tainted by dishonesty. The Tribunal concluded that there is no evidence of a prohibited practice under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act and that RTG will...

Citation
[2007] ZACT 99
Parties
Applicant: Replication Technology Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gallo Africa Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2007
Case Number
92/IR/Sep07
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Decision on Interim Relief Under Section 49 C of the Competition Act
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed with costs.
Judges
D Lewis, M Moerane, M Madlanga
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Market Division, Section 4 1 B Competition Act, Interim Relief, Customer Allocation
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Restraint of Trade Market Division Section 4 1 B Competition Act Interim Relief Customer Allocation

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

Parties

Replication Technology Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gallo Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Relief Application / Decision on Interim Relief Under Section 49 C of the Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 13 of the Sale Agreement constitutes a prohibited market division under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the restraint of trade is unduly restrictive and amounts to a prohibited practice.
  3. 3 Whether interim relief should be granted to prevent enforcement of the restraint pending final determination of the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that clause 13 of the Sale Agreement is a restraint of trade commonly associated with the sale of a business and is limited in both duration and scope. The restraint does not exclude RTG from the market entirely and is commercially justified to protect the purchaser's investment and goodwill. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Nedschroef, noting that the restraint here is not a hard-core market division but a standard commercial term. The evidence presented by RTG was found to be unreliable and tainted by dishonesty. The Tribunal concluded that there is no evidence of a prohibited practice under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act and that RTG will...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for interim relief is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall be borne by the applicant, including the costs of two counsel.