South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission of South Africa v Bank of America Merrill Lynch International and Others (215/CAC/APR23)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Bank of America Merrill Lynch International and Others (215/CAC/APR23) [2024] ZACAC 1; [2024] 1 CPLR 1 (CAC) (8 January 2024)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

215/CAC/APR23

Judges

DM Davis, Nuku, Nkosi

The Court held that the Commission failed to establish a prima facie case of a single overarching conspiracy against several respondent banks, particularly pure peregrini and holding companies, due to insufficient factual allegations linking them to the alleged cartel conduct and South African jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the need for specific evidence of intentional contribution and knowledge for each respondent, as required by the 2020 order and European jurisprudence. The joining of holding companies and parties not cited in the original referral was found to be improper, as the Comm…

Source excerpt

• Cartel Conduct
• Personal Jurisdiction
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction
• Single Overarching Conspiracy
• Joinder Of Parties
• Exception Procedure

Competition Commission v Siyavuma Sports Group (Pty) Ltd (CR190Oct17; SA071Aug23)

Competition Commission v Siyavuma Sports Group (Pty) Ltd (CR190Oct17; SA071Aug23) [2023] ZACT 41; [2023] 3 CPLR 48 (CT) (15 September 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR190Oct17/SA071Aug23

Judges

S Goga, F Tregenna, A Ndoni

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement resolving price-fixing allegations against Siyavuma Sports Group and imposed a R90,000 administrative penalty.

• Price Fixing
• Cartel Conduct
• Administrative Penalty
• Consent Agreement
• Future Conduct Undertaking
• Price-fixing

Competition Commission of South Africa v Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Designated Activity Company and Others (CR212Feb17)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Designated Activity Company and Others (CR212Feb17) [2023] ZACT 26 (30 March 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR212Feb17

Judges

Y Carrim, M Mazwai, AW Wessels

The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over a broad forex cartel referral and dismissed all exceptions, objections and dismissal applications, while granting joinder applications.

• Cartel Conduct
• Exchange Rate Manipulation
• Qualified Effects Test
• Personal Jurisdiction
• Joinder Of Parties
• Exception Procedure

Competition Commission v Interaction Market Services Holdings (Pty) Ltd In re: Interaction Market Services v Competition Commission (193/CAC/Jun21)

Competition Commission v Interaction Market Services Holdings (Pty) Ltd In re: Interaction Market Services v Competition Commission (193/CAC/Jun21) [2022] ZACAC 2; [2022] 1 CPLR 1 (CAC) (25 March 2022)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

193/CAC/Jun21

Judges

T Siwendu, M Victor, T Poyo Dlwati

The Tribunal erred by requiring the Commission to plead detailed market definitions, geographic markets, and anti-competitive effects at the referral stage in a section 4(1)(b) complaint. The law does not require such granularity or a premature election between agreement and concerted practice before evidence is led. The Commission's supplementary affidavit, read with the referral complaint, provided sufficient material facts and complied substantially with Tribunal Rule 15(2). The Tribunal's order imposed requirements inconsistent with established jurisprudence and the nature of competition…

Source excerpt

• Cartel Conduct
• Price Fixing
• Competition Act Section 4
• Pleading Requirements
• Exception Procedure

Life Wise (Pty) Ltd t/a Eldan Auto Body v Competition Commission of South Africa (CR024May15; VAR133Sep20)

Life Wise (Pty) Ltd t/a Eldan Auto Body v Competition Commission of South Africa (CR024May15; VAR133Sep20) [2021] ZACT 113 (8 November 2021)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR024May15/VAR133Sep20

Judges

M Mazwai, E Daniels, AW Wessels

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or hardship sufficient to justify varying a final order under section 27(1)(d) or section 66 of the Competition Act. The economic hardship resulting from the termination of the Mercedes Benz accreditation was a commercial consequence of Eldan's admitted conduct and did not constitute an exogenous factor or exceptional circumstance as contemplated in Foskor and Ferro. The lack of legal representation during settlement negotiations was not decisive, as Eldan had been represented throughout most proceedings and m…

Source excerpt

• Consent Agreement
• Variation Of Order
• Cartel Conduct
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Res Judicata
• Administrative Penalty

Competition Commission of South Africa v Stuttafords Van Lines Gauteng Hub (Pty) (Ltd) and Others (181/CAC/Jan20)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Stuttafords Van Lines Gauteng Hub (Pty) (Ltd) and Others (181/CAC/Jan20) [2020] ZACAC 6; [2020] 2 CPLR 548 (CAC) (22 October 2020)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

181/CAC/Jan20

Judges

F Kathree-Setiloane, DM Davis, B Mnguni

The court held that the evidence did not show a binding price-fixing agreement among furniture removers about e-toll recovery, so the cross-appeal succeeded.

• Horizontal Agreements
• Price Fixing
• Cartel Conduct
• Limitation Of Actions
• Competition Act Section 4
• Administrative Penalty

Competition Commission v T.RAD Company Limited (CO112Sep20)

Competition Commission v T.RAD Company Limited (CO112Sep20) [2020] ZACT 69 (21 September 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO112Sep20

Judge

Tembinkosi Bonakele

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement between the Competition Commission and T.RAD, imposing a R500,000 penalty and compliance undertakings.

• Cartel Conduct
• Price Fixing
• Market Division
• Collusive Tendering
• Administrative Penalty
• Consent Agreement

Competition Commission v Panasonic Corporation (CO103Aug20)

Competition Commission v Panasonic Corporation (CO103Aug20) [2020] ZACT 63 (16 September 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO103Aug20

Judges

M Mazwai, E Daniels, I Valodia

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Panasonic Corporation, imposing a R537,980 penalty and compliance undertakings.

• Cartel Conduct
• Price Fixing
• Market Division
• Collusive Tendering
• Administrative Penalty
• Consent Agreement

Competition Commission v MAHLE GmbH and Another (CO104Aug20)

Competition Commission v MAHLE GmbH and Another (CO104Aug20) [2020] ZACT 59 (14 September 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO104Aug20

Judges

M Mazwai, E Daniels, I Valodia

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement in a cartel matter, imposing a R1,622,106 penalty on MAHLE Behr for collusive conduct involving HVAC tenders.

• Cartel Conduct
• Administrative Penalty
• Section 4 1 B Contravention
• Consent Agreement
• Compliance Programme
• Competition-law

Competition Commission v Yazaki Corporation (CO079Aug20)

Competition Commission v Yazaki Corporation (CO079Aug20) [2020] ZACT 67 (21 August 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO079Aug20

Judges

Y Carrim, A Ndoni, F Tregenna

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Yazaki Corporation, imposed a penalty, and required compliance measures for alleged cartel conduct.

• Cartel Conduct
• Price Fixing
• Market Division
• Collusive Tendering
• Administrative Penalty
• Cartel-conduct