SAD Holdings Limited and Another v Competition Commission in re: Competition Commission v SAD Holdings Limited and Another [2001] ZACT 40 (23 October 2001)

SAD Holdings Limited and Another v Competition Commission in re: Competition Commission v SAD Holdings Limited and Another [2001] ZACT 40 (23 October 2001)

The Tribunal found that the Commission was not precluded by operation of law from continuing its investigation after the High Court order, as the Commission was not a party to the litigation and the relief granted did not affect its investigative powers. The Tribunal held that the time period for referral was not validly suspended, and that it had no discretion to condone non-compliance with the referral time limit after its expiry. The Commission's referral was therefore out of time, and by operation of Rule 19(4), the Commission is deemed to have issued a notice of non-referral to the complainants. The complainants are entitled to refer the complaint directly to the Tribunal, with the...

Citation
[2001] ZACT 40
Parties
Applicant: SAD Holdings Limited; Applicant: SAD Vine Fruit (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Competition Commission; Complainant: South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd; Complainant: Mr Slabber
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 2001
Case Number
41/CR/Jul01
Procedural Posture
Jurisdictional Application / Application to Dismiss Complaint Referral for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application to dismiss the complaint referral is granted; the Commission is deemed to have issued a notice of non-referral.
Judges
N. Manoim, D. Lewis, C. Qunta
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Competition Tribunal, Referral Time Limits, Non Referral Notice, Condonation of Non Compliance
Competition Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Competition Tribunal Referral Time Limits Non Referral Notice Condonation of Non Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAD Holdings Limited

Applicant

SAD Vine Fruit (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Competition Commission

Respondent

South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd

Complainant

Mr Slabber

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Jurisdictional Application / Application to Dismiss Complaint Referral for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Commission had jurisdiction to refer the complaint to the Tribunal after the expiry of the one-year period prescribed by Rule 19(2).
  2. 2 Whether the period during which the Commission suspended its investigation due to a High Court judgment constituted a valid interruption of the referral time limit.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has discretion to condone non-compliance with the referral time limit post facto.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Commission was not precluded by operation of law from continuing its investigation after the High Court order, as the Commission was not a party to the litigation and the relief granted did not affect its investigative powers. The Tribunal held that the time period for referral was not validly suspended, and that it had no discretion to condone non-compliance with the referral time limit after its expiry. The Commission's referral was therefore out of time, and by operation of Rule 19(4), the Commission is deemed to have issued a notice of non-referral to the complainants. The complainants are entitled to refer the complaint directly to the Tribunal, with the...

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss the complaint referral is granted; the Commission is deemed to have issued a notice of non-referral.

Orders

  • The Commission has no jurisdiction to refer the complaint to the Tribunal.
  • The Commission is deemed to have issued a notice of non-referral to the complainants.