South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd and Another and SAD Holdings Ltd and Another [2000] ZACT 46 (24 November 2000)

South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd and Another and SAD Holdings Ltd and Another [2000] ZACT 46 (24 November 2000)

The Tribunal found that the respondents, through specific articles of association, effectively require or induce grapes-for-raisins producers not to deal with the first claimant, South African Raisins (SAR). These provisions, when applied by a dominant firm, constitute exclusionary conduct prohibited by Section 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act. The respondents failed to provide convincing evidence of technological, efficiency, or other pro-competitive gains that would outweigh the anti-competitive effects. The Tribunal was satisfied that the requirements for interim relief under Section 59 were met: SAR faced serious, irreparable harm, the purposes of the Act would be frustrated without...

Citation
[2000] ZACT 46
Parties
Applicant: South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Johannes Petrus Slabber; Respondent: SAD Holdings Ltd; Respondent: SAD Vine Fruit (Pty) Ltd
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2000
Case Number
04/IR/Oct/1999
Procedural Posture
Interim Relief Application / Application for Interim Relief Under Section 59 of the Competition Act
Outcome
Application for interim relief granted in favour of the claimants under Section 59 of the Competition Act for contravention of Section 8(d)(i).
Judges
D. H. Lewis, C. Qunta, F.C.v N. Fourie
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominance, Exclusionary Conduct, Essential Facility, Interim Relief, Restrictive Practices
Competition Law Commercial and Corporate Abuse of Dominance Exclusionary Conduct Essential Facility Interim Relief Restrictive Practices

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Johannes Petrus Slabber

Applicant

SAD Holdings Ltd

Respondent

SAD Vine Fruit (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Relief Application / Application for Interim Relief Under Section 59 of the Competition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents abused their dominant position by exclusionary conduct in contravention of Section 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for interim relief under Section 59 of the Competition Act are met.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' articles of association unlawfully restrict competition in the grapes-for-raisins market.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondents, through specific articles of association, effectively require or induce grapes-for-raisins producers not to deal with the first claimant, South African Raisins (SAR). These provisions, when applied by a dominant firm, constitute exclusionary conduct prohibited by Section 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act. The respondents failed to provide convincing evidence of technological, efficiency, or other pro-competitive gains that would outweigh the anti-competitive effects. The Tribunal was satisfied that the requirements for interim relief under Section 59 were met: SAR faced serious, irreparable harm, the purposes of the Act would be frustrated without...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief granted in favour of the claimants under Section 59 of the Competition Act for contravention of Section 8(d)(i).

Orders

  • The first respondent is interdicted and restrained from requiring any of its shareholders to abide by Articles 6.1, 88.2, 88.3 and 88.5 of its articles of association.
  • The respondents are interdicted and restrained from requiring or inducing producers of grapes-for-raisins not to deal with the first claimant, including penalising producers for delivering to the first claimant or for using respondents' containers for such deliveries.