South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission of South Africa v Pickfords Removals SA (Pty) Ltd (167/CAC/Jul18)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Pickfords Removals SA (Pty) Ltd (167/CAC/Jul18) [2019] ZACAC 5; [2020] 1 CPLR 55 (CAC) (3 April 2019)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

167/CAC/Jul18

Judges

WHG van der Linde, NP Boqwana, F Kathree-Setiloane

The court held that section 67(1) of the Competition Act creates a limitation period that runs from the cessation of the prohibited practice, not from the date the Commissioner acquires knowledge of the practice. The provision is substantive, not procedural, and does not allow for condonation unless expressly provided for, which is not the case here. The second complaint initiation was considered an amendment of the first, but for the respondent, the relevant initiation date was when it was first named. Consequently, any alleged contraventions that ceased more than three years before the seco…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Periods
• Complaint Initiation
• Collusive Tendering
• Amendment Of Initiation
• Condonation
• Restrictive Horizontal Practices

Power Construction (West Cape) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (145/CAC/Sep16)

Power Construction (West Cape) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (145/CAC/Sep16) [2017] ZACAC 6; [2017] 2 CPLR 589 (CAC) (2 May 2017)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

145/CAC/Sep16

Judges

Davis JP, Vally, Makgoba

The court held that the Competition Commission's complaint initiation on 1 September 2009 was valid and included the appellants by reference to 'other firms' in the construction industry. The appellants voluntarily disclosed their involvement in the prohibited practice in response to the Commission's invitation, and were properly added to the complaint. The court found that the prohibited practice of collusive tendering did not cease with the award of the tender, but continued until the final payment was made on 17 February 2009. Since the initiation of the complaint occurred within three yea…

Source excerpt

• Collusive Tendering
• Prescription Under Competition Act
• Administrative Penalty
• Complaint Initiation
• Cover Pricing

Competition Commission v Yara (South Africa ) (Pty) Ltd and Others (784/12)

Competition Commission v Yara (South Africa ) (Pty) Ltd and Others (784/12) [2013] ZASCA 107; [2013] 4 All SA 302 (SCA); 2013 (6) SA 404 (SCA); [2013] 2 CPLR 351 (SCA) (13 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

784/12

Judges

Brand, Nugent, Malan, Petse, Saldulker

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Commission's referral to the Tribunal was valid, as the Commission had tacitly initiated new complaints during its investigation, which were incorporated into the referral. The Court rejected the strict referral rule applied by the Competition Appeal Court, finding that the Act does not require formal initiation for each new complaint discovered during investigation, and that the Commission may initiate complaints informally or tacitly. The Court found that the referral was not invalid simply because it went beyond the scope of Nutri-Flo's…

Source excerpt

• Complaint Initiation
• Referral Rule
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Price Fixing
• Market Division
• Bid Rigging

Astral Operations Ltd and Others v Competition Commission, In re: Competition Commission v Astral Operations Ltd and Others (74/CR/Jun08)

Astral Operations Ltd and Others v Competition Commission, In re: Competition Commission v Astral Operations Ltd and Others (74/CR/Jun08) [2011] ZACT 83 (20 October 2011)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

74/CR/Jun08

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels

The Tribunal held that most of the Commission’s referral was properly based on the complaint, but dismissed the referral as against Ross Poultry Breeders.

• Complaint Initiation
• Referral Jurisdiction
• Restrictive Practices
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Vertical Agreements
• Horizontal Agreements

South African Breweries and Others v Competition Commision (134/CR/DEC07)

South African Breweries and Others v Competition Commision (134/CR/DEC07) [2011] ZACT 73; [2011] 2 CPLR 403 (CT) (16 September 2011)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

134/CR/DEC07

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Merle Holden

The Tribunal dismissed a competition referral, holding it was not founded on the original complaint and therefore fell outside its jurisdiction.

• Complaint Initiation
• Jurisdictional Precondition
• Referral Requirements
• Amendment Of Initiating Document
• Price Discrimination
• Exclusive Territories

Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others v Competition Commission South Africa and Others, Feltex Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission South Africa and Others (102/CAC/Jun10)

Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others v Competition Commission South Africa and Others, Feltex Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission South Africa and Others (102/CAC/Jun10) [2011] ZACAC 4; [2011] 1 CPLR 19 (CAC) (6 May 2011)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

102/CAC/Jun10

Judges

Wallis, Davis, Ndita

The Tribunal's decision to allow amendments to the complaint referral was final and appealable as it disposed of jurisdictional issues. The Commission failed to properly initiate a complaint against Feltex regarding the chemical cartel, and the statutory scheme requires strict compliance with initiation, investigation, and referral procedures. The attempt to introduce new parties and causes of action by amendment was impermissible. Section 4(5)(b) of the Competition Act is exclusionary and cannot be used to attach liability to Steinhoff International and Steinhoff Africa for conduct involving…

Source excerpt

• Complaint Initiation
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Amendment Of Affidavit
• Joinder Of Parties
• Restrictive Horizontal Practices
• Administrative Penalty Liability

Yara South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Others in re: Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Ltd and Others; Omnia Fertilizers v Competition Commission

Yara South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Others in re: Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Ltd and Others; Omnia Fertilizers v Competition Commission [2011] ZACAC 9; [2011] ZACAC 2 (14 March 2011)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

93/CAC/Mar10CT

Judges

Dambuza JA, Davis JP, Mailula JA

The court held that the Nutri-Flo complaint, as set out in the CC1 Form and supporting affidavit, was limited to allegations of abuse of dominance by Sasol and did not include any complaint against Yara and Omnia for cartel conduct or contravention of section 4. The information relating to cartel activity and collusion submitted with the complaint was not intended to constitute a distinct complaint or separate cause of action against Yara and Omnia. The Commission was not entitled to refer or amend the referral to include particulars of a complaint not submitted by Nutri-Flo. The Tribunal err…

Source excerpt

• Complaint Initiation
• Referral Amendment
• Cartel Information
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Procedural Fairness

Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission (2010 (6) SA 108 (SCA);

Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission (2010 (6) SA 108 (SCA); [2011] 3 All SA 192 (SCA)) [2010] ZASCA 104; 105/2010 (13 September 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

105/2010

Judges

Harms, Lewis, Heher, Ponnan, Ebrahim

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Commission's initiation of a broad investigation into the milk industry in 2005 was invalid, as it was not based on reasonable suspicion of specific prohibited practices and failed to identify particular parties or conduct. The subsequent summonses issued under section 49A were void for vagueness and overbreadth, and the evidence obtained through these summonses was tainted. The 2006 complaint initiations and referrals to the Competition Tribunal were directly derived from the invalid 2005 investigation and thus had to be set aside. The Co…

Source excerpt

• Complaint Initiation
• Tainted Evidence
• Powers Of Summons
• Referral Procedure
• Jurisdictional Facts

Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission; Competition Commission v Clover Industries Limited and Others (103/CR/Dec06)

Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission; Competition Commission v Clover Industries Limited and Others (103/CR/Dec06) [2009] ZACT 18; [2009] 1 CPLR 250 (CT) (17 March 2009)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

103/CR/Dec06

Judges

D Lewis, N Manoim, M Madlanga

The Tribunal found that both the summonses issued to Woodlands Dairy (Pty) Ltd and Milkwood Dairy (Pty) Ltd were void for vagueness and overbreadth. The summonses failed to specify with sufficient particularity the prohibited practice under investigation, thereby exposing the applicants to unfair administrative action and undue invasion of privacy. The Tribunal held that a summons under section 49A of the Competition Act must stipulate the prohibited practice and provide enough detail to guide the addressee. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the applicants had waived their rights, findi…

Source excerpt

• Summons Validity
• Procedural Fairness
• Preservation Order
• Complaint Initiation
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Papercor CC v Finwood Papers (Pty) Ltd and Others

Papercor CC v Finwood Papers (Pty) Ltd and Others [2000] ZACT 44 (20 October 2000)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

51/IR/Apr00

Judges

Norman Manoim, U. Bhoola, C. Qunta

The Tribunal dismissed Papercor’s interim relief application because no complaint had yet been lodged with the Competition Commission when proceedings began.

• Interim Relief
• Jurisdictional Precondition
• Complaint Initiation
• Natural Justice
• Competition-law
• Interim-relief