South Africa Case Law

Capital Newspapers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Media 24 Holding Ltd and Others (259/CAC/Oct24)

Capital Newspapers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Media 24 Holding Ltd and Others (259/CAC/Oct24) [2024] ZACAC 5 (24 December 2024)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

259/CAC/Oct24

Judges

Davis AJA, Nuku JA, Siwendu AJA

The Court found that the notified transaction reviewed by the Competition Commission was limited to the sale of On the Dot and certain community newspapers, and did not encompass the migration of other print titles to digital platforms. The migration decision was a separate commercial decision by Media 24, prompted by market dynamics and declining print circulation, and did not involve a change of control as required by the Competition Act for a merger. The applicants failed to establish a sufficiently close link between the migration and the notified merger to justify treating them as a comp…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Public Interest In Mergers
• Freedom Of Expression
• Change Of Control
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Constitutional Rights In Merger Review

Murray & Roberts Holdings Limited v Aton GMBH and Another (166/CAC/Jul18)

Murray & Roberts Holdings Limited v Aton GMBH and Another (166/CAC/Jul18) [2018] ZACAC 7; [2018] 2 CPLR 519 (CAC) (28 October 2018)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

166/CAC/Jul18

Judges

Davis JP, Victor JA

Section 13A(3) of the Competition Act prohibits the implementation of a merger, meaning the exercise of control as defined in section 12, prior to approval by the competition authorities. The mere acquisition and voting of shares by a shareholder who has announced a firm intention to acquire control does not amount to implementation unless such voting confers control as defined by the Act. The Goldfields precedent is limited to situations where de facto control is acquired and exercised, not to the voting of shares absent control. In this case, Aton did not possess sufficient voting power to…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Implementation Prohibition
• De Facto Control
• Voting Rights
• Hostile Takeover
• Competition Act Interpretation

Reinforcing Mesh Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission and Others (84/CR/DEC09)

Reinforcing Mesh Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission and Others (84/CR/DEC09) [2013] ZACAC 4; 2013] 2 CPLR 455 (CAC) (15 November 2013)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

84/CR/DEC09

Judges

Davis JP, Dambuza JA, Ndita AJA

The court held that Vulcania was a party to the cartel agreement, as its conduct demonstrated consensus with other cartel members in price fixing and customer allocation, regardless of its claims of passive participation. The Tribunal was correct in finding Vulcania liable under sections 4(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Competition Act. Regarding penalties, the court interpreted 'preceding financial year' in section 59(2) to mean the last year of economic activity during cartel participation, not strictly the year before the penalty was imposed. This purposive interpretation ensures firms cannot ev…

Source excerpt

• Cartel Conduct
• Price Fixing
• Market Allocation
• Administrative Penalty
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Customer Allocation

Agri Wire (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner of the Competition Commission and Others (660/2011)

Agri Wire (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner of the Competition Commission and Others (660/2011) [2012] ZASCA 134; [2012] 4 All SA 365 (SCA); 2013 (5) SA 484 (SCA) (27 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

660/2011

Judges

Nugent, Leach, Tshiqi, Wallis, Pillay

The SCA held that the Competition Commission could lawfully adopt and apply its Corporate Leniency Policy and dismiss the referral challenge.

• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Cartel Conduct
• Administrative Penalty
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Corporate-leniency-policy

Omnia Fertilizer Ltd v The Competition Commission in re: The Competition Commission of South Africa v Sasol Chemical Industries (Pty) Ltd and Others (77/CAC/Jul08, 31/CR/MAY05, 45/CR/MAY06)

Omnia Fertilizer Ltd v The Competition Commission in re: The Competition Commission of South Africa v Sasol Chemical Industries (Pty) Ltd and Others (77/CAC/Jul08, 31/CR/MAY05, 45/CR/MAY06) [2009] ZACAC 5 (16 October 2009)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

77/CAC/Jul08

Judges

Patel, Davis, Dambuza

The Competition Appeal Court held that the Tribunal could not award costs against the Competition Commission outside a section 51(1) referral context.

• Costs Awards
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Statutory Powers Of Tribunal
• Withdrawal Of Application
• Competition-act
• Costs-orders

Omnia Fertilizer Ltd v Competition Commission; Competition Commission of South Africa v Sasol Chemical Industries (Pty) Ltd and Others (31/CR/May05)

Omnia Fertilizer Ltd v Competition Commission; Competition Commission of South Africa v Sasol Chemical Industries (Pty) Ltd and Others (31/CR/May05) [2008] ZACT 45; [2008] 2 CPLR 337 (CT) (20 June 2008)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

31/CR/May05

Judges

D Lewis, Y Carrim, U Bhoola

The Tribunal held that it is jurisdictionally barred from awarding costs against the Competition Commission except in the limited circumstances set out in section 57(2) of the Competition Act, which applies only to referrals by complainants under section 51(1) and not to the Commission. The Tribunal's rules of procedure cannot expand its statutory powers, as regulations are subordinate to the Act and cannot enlarge its meaning. The Tribunal found that the statutory scheme intentionally shields both the Commission and respondents from adverse costs orders in ordinary proceedings, reserving cos…

Source excerpt

• Costs Award
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Withdrawal Of Application

International Quality and Productivity Centre (Pty) Ltd v Tarita and Others (17338/06)

International Quality and Productivity Centre (Pty) Ltd v Tarita and Others (17338/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 85 (30 August 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

17338/06

Judge

IW Schwartzman

The court found that the employer/employee relationship created by the restraint agreements is vertical, not horizontal, and does not fall within the scope of section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act. The respondents were never competitors or potential competitors in the sense required by competition law. The restraint agreements are reasonable and enforceable to protect the applicant's legitimate interests in confidential information and trade secrets. The respondents' argument that the matter should be referred to the Competition Tribunal was dismissed as frivolous. The respondents breach…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Of Trade
• Unlawful Competition
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Competition Act Interpretation

Astral Foods Limited v Competition Commission (39/CAC/Feb04)

Astral Foods Limited v Competition Commission (39/CAC/Feb04) [2004] ZACAC 3; [2004] 1 CPLR 1 (CAC) (25 June 2004)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

39/CAC/Feb04

Judges

Malan, Selikowitz, Mailula, Jali, Hussain

The Competition Appeal Court found that the Tribunal erred in formulating the Merger Order by failing to properly address the status of existing long-term supply contracts between Natchix/Astral and independent customers. The Court held that the Tribunal did not have the power to void or terminate such contracts and that the Merger Order, as originally drafted, was unreasonable, excessive, and not justified by the evidence or competition concerns. The Court further held that the 20 business day period for lodging an appeal under section 17(1) of the Competition Act is not peremptory, and cond…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Variation Of Order
• Contractual Validity
• Competition Act Interpretation

Mike's Chicken (Pty) Ltd and Others v Astral Foods Limited and Another (32/CAC/Sep03)

Mike's Chicken (Pty) Ltd and Others v Astral Foods Limited and Another (32/CAC/Sep03) [2004] ZACAC 2; [2004] 1 CPLR 40 (CAC) (28 January 2004)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

32/CAC/Sep03

Judges

Malan, Selikowitz, Mailula

The Competition Appeal Court found the Tribunal’s merger order was not ambiguous and did not cancel existing supply contracts. The appeal was upheld and the declaratory orders set aside.

• Merger Conditions
• Variation Of Tribunal Orders
• Contractual Validity
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Competition-law
• Merger-conditions

Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and Another v Bulmer (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (08/CAC/May01)

Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and Another v Bulmer (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (08/CAC/May01) [2001] ZACAC 4; [2001-2002] CPLR 36 (CAC); 2002 (2) SA 346 (CAC) (27 November 2001)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

08/CAC/May01

Judges

Davis, Selikowitz, Mailula

The Competition Appeal Court held that the asset transaction was a notifiable merger because it involved a direct acquisition of control under section 12 of the Competition Act.

• Merger Notification
• Definition Of Control
• Single Economic Entity
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Change Of Control
• Market Structure