South Africa Case Law

Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (CCT 192/22)

Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (CCT 192/22) [2024] ZACC 3; 2024 (6) BCLR 771 (CC); [2024] 7 BLLR 665 (CC); (2024) 45 ILJ 1507 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 391 (CC) (17 April 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 192/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Chaskalson AJ, Dodson AJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Schippers AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that rule 39(2)(b) requires a special statutory review and that Coca-Cola’s retrenchments were not shown to be merger-specific.

• Merger Control
• Retrenchment Conditions
• Special Statutory Review
• Causation In Employment
• Competition Act
• Labour Relations Act

Mondi Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Another (47050/13)

Mondi Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Another (47050/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 249; [2016] 2 CPLR 463 (GP) (20 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

47050/13

Judge

M F Legodi

The High Court held that it was not competent to entertain the Commission's application for leave to appeal after the Constitutional Court had dismissed a similar application on the grounds that the appeal 'bears no prospects of success.' The Constitutional Court's order was interpreted as a dismissal on the merits, not on jurisdictional grounds or procedural technicalities. The High Court found that the Commission had the opportunity to seek clarification or correction from the Constitutional Court if it believed the order was ambiguous, but failed to do so. On the merits, the court found no…

Source excerpt

• Disclosure Of Record
• Confidential Information
• Leave To Appeal
• Competition Act
• Review Proceedings

Easi Gas (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another; In re: Oryx Oil South Africa (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another (11660/2015, 11656/2015)

Easi Gas (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another; In re: Oryx Oil South Africa (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another (11660/2015, 11656/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 73 (14 April 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11660/2015, 11656/2015

Judge

R Francis

The court found that the applicants retained ownership of the LPG cylinders by virtue of their branding, deposit system, and explicit reservation of ownership. The respondents failed to prove that ownership had passed to them, as there was no intention by the applicants to transfer or abandon ownership. The regulations and safety standards reinforce the requirement for owner authorization before refilling, and the exchange practice does not undermine the applicants' rights. The second respondent admitted to filling the applicants' cylinders, justifying interdictory relief against him. The app…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Of Movable Property
• Final Interdict
• Deposit System
• Exchange Practice
• Competition Act
• Lifting Corporate Veil

Netcare Hospitals (Pty) Ltd v KPMG Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (47505/2013)

Netcare Hospitals (Pty) Ltd v KPMG Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (47505/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 186; [2014] 4 All SA 241 (GJ) (22 August 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

47505/2013

Judge

K E Matojane

The court found that Netcare failed to establish a prima facie right to bar KPMG from acting for the Competition Commission. The contractual relationship between Netcare and KPMG expressly permitted KPMG to act for conflicting parties and did not create a restraint of trade or a fiduciary duty beyond confidentiality. The only surviving duty was to keep Netcare's confidential information confidential, and Netcare did not prove any breach or real risk of disclosure. The South African law does not extend barring out relief to professionals other than solicitors except in exceptional cases, and t…

Source excerpt

• Conflict Of Interest
• Breach Of Confidentiality
• Fiduciary Duty
• Interim Interdict
• Market Inquiry
• Competition Act

Urban Genesis Management (Pty) Ltd and Another v Jooste and Another (2014/05400)

Urban Genesis Management (Pty) Ltd and Another v Jooste and Another (2014/05400) [2014] ZAGPJHC 380; 2015 BIP 454 (GJ) (7 March 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/05400

Judge

Vally

High Court urgent application for an interdict protecting confidential business information and restraining use of trade secrets after an employee joined a competitor.

• Confidential Information
• Final Interdict
• Urgent Application
• Restraint Of Trade
• Employment Contract
• Competition Act

Competition Commission v Telkom SA Ltd; Telkom SA Ltd v Competition Commission (73/CR/Oct09)

Competition Commission v Telkom SA Ltd; Telkom SA Ltd v Competition Commission (73/CR/Oct09) [2013] ZACT 9; [2013] 1 CPLR 305 (CT) (13 February 2013)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

73/CR/Oct09

Judges

Y Carrim, A Wessels, T Madima

The Tribunal found that Rule 14(1)(d) is subordinate legislation binding on the Tribunal and other courts, and applies to proceedings before the Tribunal. The documents listed in the Commission's supplementary affidavit, including internal reports, expert opinions, peer reviews, notes, benchmarking reports, emails, memoranda, presentations, and calculations, all fall within the ambit of restricted information under Rule 14(1)(d). The Commission provided sufficient detail to justify the restriction, and Telkom did not challenge the descriptions with further affidavits or requests for detail. T…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Restricted Information
• Litigation Privilege
• Competition Act
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act

Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd and Another v Competition Commission and Others, Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd v Manoim NO and Others (103/CAC/Sep10)

Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd and Another v Competition Commission and Others, Arcelormittal South Africa Ltd v Manoim NO and Others (103/CAC/Sep10) [2012] ZACAC 1 (2 April 2012)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

103/CAC/Sep10

Judges

Davis JP, Mailula, Dambuza

The court held that documents referred to in the Commission’s referral could be sought under Rule 35(12), but confidentiality claims had to be determined under the Competition Act.

• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Confidential Information
• Litigation Privilege
• Discovery Of Documents
• Competition Act
• Access To Administrative Records

Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bowman Gilfillan and Others (22/X/Mar11)

Monsanto South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bowman Gilfillan and Others (22/X/Mar11) [2011] ZACT 33; [2011] 1 CPLR 203 (CT) (9 June 2011)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

22/X/Mar11

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Takalani Madima

The Tribunal dismissed Monsanto’s application to stay merger proceedings pending a High Court conflict-of-interest challenge against Bowmans.

• Conflict Of Interest
• Merger Proceedings
• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Interim Relief
• Competition Act
• Attorney Client Confidentiality

Freeworld Coatings Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (62/X/Oct10)

Freeworld Coatings Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (62/X/Oct10) [2010] ZACT 88; [2010] 2 CPLR 409 (CT) (14 December 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

62/X/Oct10

Judges

N Manoim, Y Carrim, A Wessels

The Tribunal found that the Commission applied an overly strict and mechanistic legal test by requiring a binding offer for a proposed merger to exist. The correct approach is to consider whether there is a sufficiently serious intent to acquire control, supported by cumulative facts and conduct, rather than relying solely on the binding nature of the offer. The Tribunal set aside the Commission's decision and referred the matter back for reconsideration in light of the correct legal test and additional information. The Commission is to determine whether a proposed merger exists and, if so, w…

Source excerpt

• Merger Notification
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Separate Merger Filing
• Competition Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Simelane NO and Others v Seven-Eleven Corporation SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (480/01)

Simelane NO and Others v Seven-Eleven Corporation SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (480/01) [2002] ZASCA 141; [2001-2002] CPLR 13 (SCA) ; [2003] 1 All SA 82 (SCA); 2003 (3) SA 64 (SCA) (26 November 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

480/01

Judges

Schutz, Hefer, Harms, Scott, Brand

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Commission's referral of complaints to the Tribunal is an investigative act, not a determinative administrative decision affecting Seven-Eleven's rights. Accordingly, it is not subject to review except in cases of ill-faith, oppression, or vexation, none of which were established. The Commission was not required to observe the audi alteram partem rule at the investigative stage, having provided Seven-Eleven with the 'gist' of the case and an opportunity to be heard, which Seven-Eleven declined to fully utilize. Allegations of bias, malice,…

Source excerpt

• Competition Act
• Administrative Review
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Investigative Vs Adjudicative Function
• Referral Of Complaints
• Bias And Ulterior Motive