South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission v Pistorius N.O and Others (CR152Dec14/SA156Dec23; 2009DEC4847 CT)

Competition Commission v Pistorius N.O and Others (CR152Dec14/SA156Dec23; 2009DEC4847 CT) [2024] ZACT 7 (13 February 2024)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR152Dec14/SA156Dec23

Judges

L Mncube, T Vilakazi, A Ndoni

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a settlement resolving allegations of commission-rate fixing involving the Pistorius trust trustees and the Competition Commission.

• Price Fixing
• Commission Rate Fixing
• Settlement Agreement
• Section 4 1 B Competition Act
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Competition-law

Competition Commission v Cape Gate (Pty) Ltd (CR029Sep09; SA203Mar23)

Competition Commission v Cape Gate (Pty) Ltd (CR029Sep09; SA203Mar23) [2023] ZACT 62 (23 July 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR029Sep09

Judges

G Budlender, I Valodia, A Ndoni

The Tribunal confirmed a settlement agreement in a long-steel competition matter, imposed a R1,375,344.32 penalty, and required compliance measures.

• Price Fixing
• Market Allocation
• Administrative Penalty
• Settlement Agreement
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Competition-law

Competition Commission of South Africa v Group Five Construction Limited (195/20)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Group Five Construction Limited (195/20) [2021] ZASCA 37 (8 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

195/20

Judges

NAVSA, ZONDI, DAMBUZA, ROGERS, MABINDLA-BOQWANA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the issues raised by Group Five in its review application—namely, the legality and validity of the Competition Commission's initiation and referral of the complaint, and the withdrawal of immunity under the Corporate Leniency Policy—are questions of legality and vires. These fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court and are not exclusively reserved for the Competition Tribunal or Competition Appeal Court under section 62(1) of the Competition Act. Section 62(2) specifically contemplates such questions, and the jurisdiction of the High Court is not ex…

Source excerpt

• Exclusive Jurisdiction
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Legality Of Referral
• Concurrent Jurisdiction

Competition Commission v More Asphalt (Pty) Ltd (CR187Nov151SA052Jun19)

Competition Commission v More Asphalt (Pty) Ltd (CR187Nov151SA052Jun19) [2019] ZACT 33 (10 July 2019)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR187Nov151SA052Jun19

Judges

N Manoim, I Valodia, Y Carrim

The Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement after More Asphalt admitted market division conduct in the Western Cape and accepted a R579,204.57 penalty.

• Market Division
• Administrative Penalty
• Cartel Conduct
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Competition-law
• Cartel-conduct

Unilever South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission; In Re: Competition Commission v Unilever South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR223Mar171STR245Jan19; CR223Mar17)

Unilever South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission; In Re: Competition Commission v Unilever South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR223Mar171STR245Jan19; CR223Mar17) [2019] ZACT 37 (26 June 2019)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR223Mar171STR245Jan19

Judges

Y Carrim, M Mazwai, AW Wessels

The Tribunal found that Unilever's leniency application was in the nature of without prejudice settlement discussions and thus protected by negotiation privilege. The Commission's distinction between investigative and settlement tools was rejected, as the CLP process inherently involves seeking leniency in exchange for frank disclosure, which is a form of settlement. The Tribunal held that such applications must be treated as confidential and privileged unless both parties waive privilege. The Commission failed to establish a factual or legal basis for including the leniency application in th…

Source excerpt

• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Negotiation Privilege
• Without Prejudice Settlement
• Trial Bundle Evidence
• Confidential Information

Competition Commission v Paramount Mills (Pty) Ltd (CR087Mar10/SA253Feb19)

Competition Commission v Paramount Mills (Pty) Ltd (CR087Mar10/SA253Feb19) [2019] ZACT 19 (13 March 2019)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR087Mar10/SA253Feb19

Judges

Y Carrim, A Ndoni, I Valodia

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a settlement in which Paramount Mills admitted price fixing in the white maize milling market and accepted an administrative penalty.

• Price Fixing
• Administrative Penalty
• Settlement Agreement
• Section 4 1 B I
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Competition-law

Competition Commission v Primedia Limited and Another (CR191Mar12)

Competition Commission v Primedia Limited and Another (CR191Mar12) [2018] ZACT 11; [2018] 1 CPLR 144 (CT) (5 February 2018)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR191Mar12

Judges

Anton Roskam, lmraan Valodia, Enver Daniels

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreement between Ster-Kinekor and Nu Metro was concluded before the Competition Act came into operation. For a contravention of section 4(1)(b)(ii) to be established, there must be evidence of actions or discussions directed at implementing the agreement after the Act commenced. The evidence did not support the Commission's contention that the settlement agreement was implemented post-commencement. Witnesses from Ster-Kinekor credibly testified that they were unaware of the agreement and did not act in accordance with it, and the only attempt to enforce…

Source excerpt

• Market Allocation
• Horizontal Agreements
• Section 4 Competition Act
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Successor Liability

WBHO Construction Limited v Competition Commission and Another; In re: Competition Commission v WBHO Construction Limited and Another (CR162Oct15/ARI187Dec16)

WBHO Construction Limited v Competition Commission and Another; In re: Competition Commission v WBHO Construction Limited and Another (CR162Oct15/ARI187Dec16) [2017] ZACT 51; [2017] 2 CPLR 903 (CT) (8 August 2017)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR162Oct15/ARI187Dec16

Judges

Andreas Wessels, Mondo Mazwai, Enver Daniels

The Tribunal found that the annexures to Group Five's Corporate Leniency Policy application and the transcript of the first meeting between the Commission and Group Five were generated in contemplation of litigation and under the direction of the Commission. The Commission's affidavit explained that these documents were prepared for its use in prosecuting cartel conduct, and their proximity in time to the leniency application supported this. The Tribunal accepted the Commission's explanation and applied the principle that privilege attaches to documents produced for litigation, not merely tho…

Source excerpt

• Litigation Privilege
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Discovery Of Documents
• Cartel Conduct
• Administrative Penalty

Competition Commission v Isipani Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR128Nov14)

Competition Commission v Isipani Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR128Nov14) [2016] ZACT 88; [2016] 2 CPLR 516 (CT) (18 July 2016)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR128Nov14

Judges

A Wessels, M Mokuena, A Roskam

Isipani Construction admitted to two separate instances of cover pricing with Neil Muller Construction, constituting contraventions of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal found that each instance was a distinct infringement but, in the interest of fairness and proportionality, imposed a single administrative penalty for both. The Tribunal applied the six-step penalty determination process, using Isipani's total turnover for the financial year ended 30 June 2012 as the basis. The base amount was set at 12% of turnover, discounted from the upper bound due to the lack of direct…

Source excerpt

• Collusive Tendering
• Cover Pricing
• Administrative Penalty
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Bid Rigging

Competition Commission v Basil Read Holdings Limited (CO165Oct15)

Competition Commission v Basil Read Holdings Limited (CO165Oct15) [2015] ZACT 85; [2015] 2 CPLR 515 (CT) (18 November 2015)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO165Oct15

Judges

Y Carrim, M Mazwai, F Tregenna

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement admitting collusive tendering in a road rehabilitation tender and imposing compliance undertakings.

• Collusive Tendering
• Price Fixing
• Market Allocation
• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Section 4 1 B Iii Contravention
• Collusive-tendering