South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission v Enviro Options (Pty) Ltd (CR205Mar21; SA014May23; CR206Mar21; SA013May23)

Competition Commission v Enviro Options (Pty) Ltd (CR205Mar21; SA014May23; CR206Mar21; SA013May23) [2023] ZACT 43; [2023] 3 CPLR 47 (CT) (4 August 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR205Mar21; CR206Mar21

Judges

T Ngcukaitobi, F Tregenna, T Vilakazi

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a settlement over collusive tendering and market division involving Enviro Options, imposed a R745,000 penalty, and required compliance steps.

• Collusive Tendering
• Price Fixing
• Market Division
• Administrative Penalty
• Competition Act Section 4
• Compliance Programme

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Competition Commission Of South Africa (165/CAC/Mar18)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Competition Commission Of South Africa (165/CAC/Mar18) [2023] ZACAC 1; [2023] 2 CPLR 15 (CAC) (24 March 2023)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

165/CAC/Mar18

Judges

Vally JA, Nuku AJA, Nkosi AJA

The court held that the interests of justice dictate that SBSA should not be granted access to the Commission's investigation record prior to the close of pleadings in the Tribunal proceedings. Allowing SBSA such access through the review application would circumvent the Tribunal's discovery process, confer an unfair advantage, and undermine the equal treatment of litigants. The court found that the unintended consequence of reviewability should be managed by staying the review application until the discovery stage is complete. A permanent stay was deemed inappropriate, as it would unduly res…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Proceedings
• Discovery
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Competition Act Section 4
• Access To Investigation Record

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

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

Eston Brick & Tile (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of the Competition Commission and Others; In Re: Competition Commission v Corobrik (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR098Jul17/RVW131Aug17)

Eston Brick & Tile (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner of the Competition Commission and Others; In Re: Competition Commission v Corobrik (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR098Jul17/RVW131Aug17) [2019] ZACT 73 (21 October 2019)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR098Jul17/RVW131Aug17

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Anton A. Roskam

The Tribunal dismissed Eston Brick & Tile’s review of the Competition Commission’s decision to initiate and refer a market-division complaint.

• Collusive Market Division
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Principle Of Legality
• Legitimate Expectation
• Competition Act Section 4
• Initiation And Referral Decisions

IEP Portfolio 1 (Pty) Ltd v Assupol Holdings Limited (LM042May18)

IEP Portfolio 1 (Pty) Ltd v Assupol Holdings Limited (LM042May18) [2018] ZACT 76 (22 August 2018)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM042May18

Judges

Andreas Wessels, Enver Daniels, Fiona Tregenna

The Competition Tribunal conditionally approved IEP Portfolio 1’s acquisition of additional Assupol shares, imposing remedies to prevent sensitive information exchange and cross-directorships.

• Merger Control
• Information Exchange
• Cross Directorships
• Competition Act Section 4
• Merger-control
• Information-exchange

Competition Commission v Plasser South Africa (Pty) Ltd (CR078Aug16/SA276Feb18, 2014Aug0465)

Competition Commission v Plasser South Africa (Pty) Ltd (CR078Aug16/SA276Feb18, 2014Aug0465) [2018] ZACT 13; [2018] 1 CPLR 198 (CT) (21 February 2018)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR078Aug16/SA276Feb18

Judges

AW Wessels, M Mazwai, A Ndoni

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement admitting collusive tendering and market division, imposed an administrative penalty, and required compliance measures.

• Collusive Tendering
• Market Division
• Administrative Penalty
• Consent Agreement
• Competition Act Section 4
• Collusive-tendering

Omnico (Pty) Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Others (142/CAC/JUNE 16; 143/CAC/JUNE 16; : CR049 JULY 2012)

Omnico (Pty) Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Others (142/CAC/JUNE 16; 143/CAC/JUNE 16; : CR049 JULY 2012) [2016] ZACAC 4; [2016] 2 CPLR 398 (CAC) (15 December 2016)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

142/CAC/JUNE 16

Judges

M Victor, Davis JP, NP Boqwana

The court found that Omnico and Coolheat attended meetings where the collective raising of recommended retail prices was discussed and agreed upon. Their failure to publicly distance themselves from the consensus reached at the September 2008 meeting, combined with subsequent price increases in line with the agreement, constituted participation in a cartel. The court held that passive attendance and silence, in the context of anti-competitive discussions, is sufficient for liability under section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act. The evidence presented by the Commission was clear, consistent…

Source excerpt

• Horizontal Agreements
• Price Fixing
• Cartel Liability
• Passive Participation
• Administrative Penalty
• Competition Act Section 4

South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes, South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes, South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes; In re: Council for Medical Schemes v South African Paediatric Association and Another; In re: Council for Medical Schemes v Society for Cardiothoracic Surgeons of South Africa and Another (CRP065Jul13/PIL001Apr16, CRP065JUl13/EXC263Mar16, CRP066Jul13/EXC262MAr16, CRP066Jul13/AME023May16, CRP065Jul13/AME022May16)

South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes, South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes, South African Medical Association v Council for Medical Schemes; In re: Council for Medical Schemes v South African Paediatric Association and Another; In re: Council for Medical Schemes v Society for Cardiothoracic Surgeons of South Africa and Another (CRP065Jul13/PIL001Apr16, CRP065JUl13/EXC263Mar16, CRP066Jul13/EXC262MAr16, CRP066Jul13/AME023May16, CRP065Jul13/AME022May16) [2016] ZACT 71; [2016] 2 CPLR 1027 (CT) (15 September 2016)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CRP065Jul13/PIL001Apr16

Judges

Norman Manoim, Anton Roskam, Yasmin Carrim

The Tribunal found that SAMA's in limine objections to CMS's competence and the validity of the referrals were without merit. The Competition Act permits any person, including regulatory authorities, to refer complaints, and section 7 of the Medical Schemes Act provides CMS with a broad mandate to protect beneficiaries, which encompasses addressing anti-competitive conduct. The Commission's non-referral remains valid until set aside by review. However, the Tribunal held that CMS's amendment applications, which sought to substitute entire referral affidavits, were irregular and did not adequat…

Source excerpt

• Horizontal Agreements
• Price Fixing
• Competition Act Section 4
• Exception Application
• Amendment Application

Competition Commission v Malesela Taihan Electric Cable (Pty) Ltd (CO085Jul15)

Competition Commission v Malesela Taihan Electric Cable (Pty) Ltd (CO085Jul15) [2015] ZACT 122; [2015] 2 CPLR 566 (CT) (2 September 2015)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO085Jul15

Judges

A Wessels, I Valodia, M Mokuena

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement finding collusive tendering and price fixing by Malesela Taihan Electric Cable and imposing a R20.2 million penalty.

• Collusive Tendering
• Price Fixing
• Market Division
• Administrative Penalty
• Competition Act Section 4
• Collusive-tendering