South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd. and Another v S A D Holdings Ltd. (176/2000) [2000] ZASCA 60; 2001 (2) SA 877 (SCA); (29 September 2000)

South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd. and Another v S A D Holdings Ltd. (176/2000) [2000] ZASCA 60; 2001 (2) SA 877 (SCA); (29 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Act applies to the raisin industry because there is no existing directive, regulation, or authorisation under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act that governs monopolistic or anti-competitive acts in the sector. The Marketing of Agricultural Products Act is merely enabling and does not itself constitute public regulation for the purposes of s 3(1)(d) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to issue the interim orders, and the High Court erred in declaring those orders null and void. The appeal was allowed, and the application in the court a quo was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 60
Parties
Appellant: South African Raisins (Proprietary) Limited; Appellant: Johannes PE Slabber; Respondent: S A D Holdings Limited; Respondent: S A D Vine Fruit (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Case Number
176/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Judgment of the court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs.
Judges
Grosskopf, Howie, Plewman, Melunsky, Farlam
Legal Topics
Competition Act Application, Public Regulation Exclusion, Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, Jurisdiction of Competition Tribunal
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Competition Act Application Public Regulation Exclusion Marketing of Agricultural Products Act Jurisdiction of Competition Tribunal

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Raisins (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Johannes PE Slabber

Appellant

S A D Holdings Limited

Respondent

S A D Vine Fruit (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Competition Act 89 of 1998 applies to the raisin industry or whether the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act 47 of 1996 governs the dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the Competition Tribunal had jurisdiction to issue interim orders in relation to the marketing of raisins.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was correct in declaring the Tribunal's orders null and void.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Act applies to the raisin industry because there is no existing directive, regulation, or authorisation under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act that governs monopolistic or anti-competitive acts in the sector. The Marketing of Agricultural Products Act is merely enabling and does not itself constitute public regulation for the purposes of s 3(1)(d) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to issue the interim orders, and the High Court erred in declaring those orders null and void. The appeal was allowed, and the application in the court a quo was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Judgment of the court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
  • The judgment of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'Application dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.'