South Africa Case Law

Sasol South Africa Ltd v Vitol Emerald Bidco (Pty) Ltd and Others (LM196Mar23)

Sasol South Africa Ltd v Vitol Emerald Bidco (Pty) Ltd and Others (LM196Mar23) [2023] ZACT 78 (6 December 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM196Mar23

Judge

M Mazwai

The Competition Tribunal granted Sasol leave to intervene in merger proceedings, but limited its participation to submissions on a local procurement remedy and related confidentiality issues.

• Merger Intervention
• Local Procurement Remedy
• Competition Act Section 53
• Confidential Information Access
• Merger-intervention
• Local-procurement-remedy

Caxton & CTP Publishes and Printers Ltd v Naspers Ltd and Others (72/CAC/Aug 2007)

Caxton & CTP Publishes and Printers Ltd v Naspers Ltd and Others (72/CAC/Aug 2007) [2007] ZACAC 4 (8 October 2007)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

72/CAC/Aug 2007

Judges

Levinsohn, Davis, Mailula

The court held that the Competition Tribunal acted within its powers under section 53(1)(c)(v) of the Competition Act by limiting the scope of Caxton's intervention to specific issues. The Tribunal has a wide discretion to recognise participants and regulate its proceedings, including defining the ambit of intervention to ensure relevance and efficiency. Unlimited intervention would undermine the orderly and expeditious conduct of merger hearings and could result in excessive discovery and delays. The Tribunal's order was neither ultra vires nor an improper exercise of discretion. The review…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Scope Of Intervention
• Competition Act Section 53
• Tribunal Discretion
• Procedural Fairness

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited (“caxton”) and Naspers Limited (“Naspers”) & Others (72/CAC/Aug 2007)

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited (“caxton”) and Naspers Limited (“Naspers”) & Others (72/CAC/Aug 2007) [2007] ZACT 72 (5 October 2007)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

72/CAC/Aug 2007

Judges

Levinsohn, Davis, Mailula

The court held that the Competition Tribunal acted within its powers by limiting the scope of Caxton's intervention in the merger proceedings. The Tribunal's discretion under section 53(1)(c)(v) of the Competition Act is broad but must be exercised judicially to ensure orderly and expeditious hearings. Unlimited intervention would undermine the efficiency and relevance of the proceedings, potentially leading to delays and confusion. The Tribunal's order was not ultra vires, nor did it exceed its jurisdiction or improperly exercise its discretion. Rule 46 is not ultra vires the Act, as it serv…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Intervention Rights
• Scope Of Participation
• Competition Act Section 53
• Judicial Discretion