South Africa Case Law

Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (IR194Mar22/EXT035May24)

Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (IR194Mar22/EXT035May24) [2024] ZACT 23 (14 June 2024)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IR194Mar22/EXT035May24

Judges

M Mondo, L Mncube, G Budlender

The Competition Tribunal extended an interim order preventing Multichoice from removing four eMedia channels from DStv, pending the complaint referral or for six months.

• Interim Relief
• Channel Removal
• Platform Access
• Complaint Referral
• Competition-law
• Interim-relief

Tourvest Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission, Trigon Travel (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission (CR209Feb17/EXC134Aug17, CR209Feb17/EXC132Aug17)

Tourvest Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission, Trigon Travel (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission (CR209Feb17/EXC134Aug17, CR209Feb17/EXC132Aug17) [2018] ZACT 45 (10 January 2018)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR209Feb17/EXC134Aug17

Judges

Norman Manoim, Enver Daniels, Anton Roskam

The Tribunal dismissed exceptions to the Competition Commission’s referral, holding that the supplemented facts allowed a reasonable inference of collusive tendering.

• Collusive Tendering
• Price Fixing
• Inference Of Agreement
• Exception Application
• Complaint Referral
• Competition-law

Goodyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission, Continental Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission; In re: Competition Commission v Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (CR053Aug10/PIL225Sec16)

Goodyear South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission, Continental Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission; In re: Competition Commission v Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (CR053Aug10/PIL225Sec16) [2017] ZACT 59; [2017] 1 CPLR 460 (CT) (2 June 2017)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR053Aug10/PIL225Sec16

Judges

Yasmin Carrim, Medi Mokuena, Andreas Wessels

The Tribunal dismissed Goodyear and Continental’s in limine challenges to the Commission’s referral, finding the referral timely and technical service defects condonable.

• Complaint Referral
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Filing And Service Requirements
• Condonation Of Non Compliance
• Section 4 1 B I
• Tribunal Rules Interpretation

Invensys PLC and Others v Protea Automaton Solutions (Pty) Limited, In Re: Protea Automaton Solutions (Pty) Limited v Invensys PLC and Others (019315)

Invensys PLC and Others v Protea Automaton Solutions (Pty) Limited, In Re: Protea Automaton Solutions (Pty) Limited v Invensys PLC and Others (019315) [2015] ZACT 19 (12 March 2015)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

019315

Judges

Yasmin Carrim, Andiswa Ndoni, Fiona Tregenna

The Tribunal dismissed Protea’s complaint referral because the supplementary affidavit failed to clarify the case and introduced conduct not referred to the Commission.

• Complaint Referral
• Market Allocation
• Vertical Agreements
• Dominance
• Exception Application
• Competition-law

Altech Netstar (Pty) Ltd v Lekoa Fitment Centre, In Re: Lekoa Fitment Centre v Altech Netstar (Pty) Ltd (019331)

Altech Netstar (Pty) Ltd v Lekoa Fitment Centre, In Re: Lekoa Fitment Centre v Altech Netstar (Pty) Ltd (019331) [2014] ZACT 80 (20 November 2014)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

019331

Judges

Yasmin Carrim, Norman Manoim, Medi Mokuena

The Tribunal upheld an exception against a complaint referral that failed to plead a valid competition-law cause of action and dismissed the referral.

• Vertical Agreements
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Price Discrimination
• Restraint Of Trade
• Exception Application
• Complaint Referral

Independent Newspapers Pty Ltd and Others v El page; In Re: El Page v East Cape Property Guide and Another (017913)

Independent Newspapers Pty Ltd and Others v El page; In Re: El Page v East Cape Property Guide and Another (017913) [2014] ZACT 40; [2014] 1 CPLR 315 (CT) (31 March 2014)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

017913

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Takalani Madima

The Competition Tribunal dismissed Mr Page’s 2013 complaint referral as prescribed, barred by prior proceedings, and unsupported by a coherent founding affidavit.

• Prescription Of Complaints
• Res Judicata
• Public Interest Dismissal
• Complaint Referral
• Costs Order
• Competition-law

Paramount Mills (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission: In re; Competition Commission v Pioneer Foods (15/CR/MAR10)

Paramount Mills (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission: In re; Competition Commission v Pioneer Foods (15/CR/MAR10) [2011] ZACT 71; [2011] 2 CPLR 389 (CT) (7 September 2011)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

15/CR/Mar10

Judges

Y Carrim, A Wessels, L Reyburn

The Tribunal held that the Commission's referral against Paramount Mills meets the statutory requirements for complaint referral under Rule 15(1) of the Competition Act. The referral provides sufficient information for Paramount Mills to understand and answer the case, as evidenced by its detailed answering affidavit and its ability to raise the prescription point. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the referral must meet the standard of a prima facie case or the precision of pleadings in motion proceedings. The Tribunal's proceedings are sui generis and not strictly adversarial or equiv…

Source excerpt

• Cartel Conduct
• Complaint Referral
• Pleading Standards
• Prescription Under Competition Act
• Motion Proceedings
• Sui Generis Tribunal Process

Competition Commission v Geomatic Quarry Sales (Pty) Ltd t/a Quarry Co and Others (76/CR/NOV09)

Competition Commission v Geomatic Quarry Sales (Pty) Ltd t/a Quarry Co and Others (76/CR/NOV09) [2011] ZACT 37 (15 June 2011)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

76/CR/NOV09

Judges

Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels, Takalani Madima

The Tribunal held that the Commission’s complaint referral was time-barred because the first extension of the section 50 investigation period was agreed too late.

• Section 50 Time Limit
• Complaint Referral
• Extension Of Investigation Period
• Oral Vs Written Agreement
• Administrative Recordkeeping
• Competition-law

1time Airline (Pty) Ltd v Lanseria International Airport (Pty) Ltd and Another (91/CR/Dec09)

1time Airline (Pty) Ltd v Lanseria International Airport (Pty) Ltd and Another (91/CR/Dec09) [2010] ZACT 50; [2010] 2 CPLR 213 (CT) (29 July 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

91/CR/Dec09

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Thandi Orleyn

The Tribunal found that the conduct complained of in 1time's original complaint to the Commission—namely, the exclusive agreement between Kulula and Lanseria and its enforcement—was rationally linked to both section 8(c) and section 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act. The proposed amendments did not introduce a new complaint, but rather clarified and expanded upon facts already raised. The Tribunal held that a complainant is not required to specify the section of the Act when lodging a complaint, only to identify the conduct. The factual averments in the complaint referral were sufficient to esta…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Exclusive Agreements
• Complaint Referral
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Amendment Of Pleadings

Competition Commission v Yara South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another, In re Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries and Others (31/CR/May05)

Competition Commission v Yara South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another, In re Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries and Others (31/CR/May05) [2010] ZACT 15; [2009] 2 CPLR 580 (CT) (24 February 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

31/CR/May05

Judges

Y Carrim, A Wessels, T Madima

The Tribunal allowed the Competition Commission to amend its referral to add further collusive-conduct allegations and dismissed Omnia’s counter-application.

• Complaint Referral
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Collusive Conduct
• Cartel Investigation
• Public Interest Enforcement
• Competition-law