Key Truck Durban (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (4855/2021) [2022] ZAKZPHC 65 (31 October 2022)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
4855/2021
Judge
Balton
The High Court set aside the Municipality’s rejection of Key Truck’s tender bids and remitted the tender for re-evaluation, finding no proof of collusive bidding.
Tourvest Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Competition Comission and Another (195/CAC/Oct21) [2022] ZACAC 5; [2022] 2 CPLR 27 (CAC) (30 June 2022)
Court
Competition Appeal Court
Case number
195/CAC/Oct21
Judges
D Fisher, M Victor, L Nuku
The Tribunal erred in its characterisation inquiry by failing to apply accepted competition law and economic principles. The correct approach is to assess whether the parties were actual or potential competitors absent the impugned agreement. The Trust lacked the capacity, eligibility, and infrastructure to compete independently and was not a competitor in the relevant market. The collaboration between Tourvest and the Trust was fully disclosed and did not have an anti-competitive object or effect. The submission of similar bids did not constitute collusive tendering under section 4(1)(b)(iii…
Competition Commission of South Africa v Aranda Textile Mills (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR016APR18) [2020] ZACT 106 (4 December 2020)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
CR016APR18
Judges
Yasmin Carrim, Thando Vilakazi, Enver Daniels
The Tribunal found Aranda and Mzansi colluded on a Treasury blanket tender, engaging in price fixing and bid rigging, and imposed penalties on both firms.
Competition Commission v Isipani Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR128Nov14) [2016] ZACT 88; [2016] 2 CPLR 516 (CT) (18 July 2016)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
CR128Nov14
Judges
A Wessels, M Mokuena, A Roskam
Isipani Construction admitted to two separate instances of cover pricing with Neil Muller Construction, constituting contraventions of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal found that each instance was a distinct infringement but, in the interest of fairness and proportionality, imposed a single administrative penalty for both. The Tribunal applied the six-step penalty determination process, using Isipani's total turnover for the financial year ended 30 June 2012 as the basis. The base amount was set at 12% of turnover, discounted from the upper bound due to the lack of direct…
Viva Engineering Projects CC and Another v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 443 (5 June 2015)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
64340/13
Judge
AB Rossouwa
The court found that the second applicant, being a non-existent joint venture, lacked locus standi and could not assert constitutional rights. The court held that a bidder disqualified in the first phase of a phased evaluation bidding process does not have standing to challenge decisions made in subsequent phases, as such interests are not real but hypothetical or academic. The court further determined that the terms of SDB9 were reasonable and necessary to prevent bid rigging, and there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find them unreasonable, immaterial, or unconstitutiona…
Viva Engineering Project CC and Others v Minister of Water Affairs and Others (64340/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 372 (5 June 2015)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
64340/13
Judge
A B Rossouw
The court held that the second applicant, a purported joint venture, lacked locus standi because the joint venture never existed. A non-existent entity cannot have legal standing or constitutional rights. The court found no reasonable prospect that another court would overturn this finding. Furthermore, the court determined that a bidder disqualified in the first phase of a phased evaluation bidding process does not have locus standi to challenge decisions made in subsequent phases, as such interests are not real but hypothetical or academic. Regarding SDB9, the court found its terms reasonab…
Competition Commission v Yara (South Africa ) (Pty) Ltd and Others (784/12) [2013] ZASCA 107; [2013] 4 All SA 302 (SCA); 2013 (6) SA 404 (SCA); [2013] 2 CPLR 351 (SCA) (13 September 2013)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
784/12
Judges
Brand, Nugent, Malan, Petse, Saldulker
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Commission's referral to the Tribunal was valid, as the Commission had tacitly initiated new complaints during its investigation, which were incorporated into the referral. The Court rejected the strict referral rule applied by the Competition Appeal Court, finding that the Act does not require formal initiation for each new complaint discovered during investigation, and that the Commission may initiate complaints informally or tacitly. The Court found that the referral was not invalid simply because it went beyond the scope of Nutri-Flo's…
