South Africa Case Law

Tsutsumani Business Enterprises CC v Competition Tribunal and Others (205/CAC/Jul22)

Tsutsumani Business Enterprises CC v Competition Tribunal and Others (205/CAC/Jul22) [2023] ZACAC 6; [2023] 3 CPLR 34 (CAC) (13 October 2023)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

205/CAC/Jul22

Judges

Poyo Dlwati, Manoim, Masipa

The court held that the applicant's review application was fatally late and not properly explained, failing to meet the requirements for condonation. On the merits, the Tribunal correctly found the applicant to be a dominant firm under the Competition Act, as its turnover exceeded the statutory threshold and it possessed market power during the COVID-19 crisis. The price charged for masks was excessive and unreasonable, with a mark-up and margin far above competitive benchmarks, and not justified by the applicant's claimed costs. The Tribunal's imposition of a penalty was within its powers an…

Source excerpt

• Excessive Pricing
• Dominance
• Administrative Penalty
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Condonation
• Review Vs Appeal

Competition Commission of South Africa v Bluecollar Occupational Health (Pty) Ltd (COVCR114Sep20)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Bluecollar Occupational Health (Pty) Ltd (COVCR114Sep20) [2023] ZACT 16 (3 April 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

COVCR114Sep20

Judges

M Mazwai, A Wessels, A Ndoni

The Tribunal found that BlueCollar, acting in partnership with Ateltico, acquired temporary market power in the urgent supply of hand sanitiser to SAPS during the Covid-19 pandemic. BlueCollar's pricing was significantly above competitive benchmarks, with a gross margin of 42% and a mark-up of 73%, compared to the appropriate benchmark of 10% to 15% for resellers. The price charged was more than double the National Treasury's list price. BlueCollar failed to justify the reasonableness of its pricing, and Ateltico's profit share could not be treated as a finance cost but as partnership profit…

Source excerpt

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Dominance
• Administrative Penalty
• Partnership Liability

Competition Commission v Tsutsumani Business Enterprises CC (COVCR113Sep20)

Competition Commission v Tsutsumani Business Enterprises CC (COVCR113Sep20) [2022] ZACT 97 (28 April 2022)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

COVCR113Sep20

Judges

M Mazwai, A Wessels, A Ndoni

The Tribunal found that Tsutsumani met the financial threshold for dominance and exercised market power during the Covid-19 crisis, as SAPS was a price taker with urgent and large-scale demand for masks. Tsutsumani's mark-up and margin on masks supplied to SAPS were significantly above competitive benchmarks and not justified by any corresponding cost increases. The Tribunal rejected Tsutsumani's cost justifications, including administration, loan interest, retrenchment costs, and tax liabilities, as either unsubstantiated or irrelevant to the excessive pricing analysis. The Tribunal held tha…

Source excerpt

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Dominance
• Administrative Penalty
• Consumer Protection Regulations

Competition Commission v Supra Healthcare Cape Town (Pty) Ltd (CO204Mar21)

Competition Commission v Supra Healthcare Cape Town (Pty) Ltd (CO204Mar21) [2021] ZACT 91 (12 March 2021)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO204Mar21

Judges

AW Wessels, Y Carrim, E Daniels

The Tribunal confirmed the consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Supra Healthcare Cape Town (Pty) Ltd. The Commission's investigation established that Supra Healthcare charged excessive prices for medical examination gloves supplied to the Western Cape Department of Health during the Covid-19 disaster period, with profit margins exceeding the public procurement benchmark. Supra Healthcare did not dispute the findings and agreed to a settlement including undertakings to desist from excessive pricing, implement a compliance programme, and provide surgical masks to the Departm…

Source excerpt

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Dominance
• Public Procurement
• Section 8 Competition Act

Ivlyn Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Fairy Tales Boutiques (Pty) Ltd and Somerset Baby Hyper (Pty) Ltd t/a 'Baby City' and Another (LM101Aug20)

Ivlyn Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Fairy Tales Boutiques (Pty) Ltd and Somerset Baby Hyper (Pty) Ltd t/a 'Baby City' and Another (LM101Aug20) [2021] ZACT 7 (26 January 2021)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM101Aug20

Judges

Andreas Wessels, Enver Daniels, Yasmin Carrim

The Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved Ivlyn Consolidated Holdings’ merger to acquire control of Baby City and joint control of ToyZone.

• Large Merger Review
• Market Definition
• Public Interest
• Dominance
• Retail Market Analysis
• Large-merger-review

Competition Commission v Sentra Kem Pharmacy CC (CO106Aug20)

Competition Commission v Sentra Kem Pharmacy CC (CO106Aug20) [2020] ZACT 54 (2 September 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO106Aug20

Judges

E Daniels, AW Wessels, Y Carrim

The Tribunal confirmed the consent agreement on the basis that Sentra Kem Pharmacy CC's conduct in charging excessive prices for facial masks during the national disaster period may constitute a contravention of section 8(1)(a) of the Competition Act read with Regulation 4 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. The respondent's gross profit margins exceeded the competitive benchmark, and the price increases were not justified by corresponding cost increases. The respondent agreed to pay a contribution to the Solidarity Fund, reduce future margins, implement compliance measures, and circulate…

Source excerpt

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Dominance
• Consumer Protection
• Gross Profit Margin
• Settlement Agreement

Competition Commission v Oil and More General Trading CC (CO085Aug20)

Competition Commission v Oil and More General Trading CC (CO085Aug20) [2020] ZACT 62 (14 August 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO085Aug20

Judges

Y Carrim, F Tregenna, A Ndoni

The Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement finding excessive pricing of nitrile gloves during the COVID-19 disaster period and ordering remedial undertakings.

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Dominance
• Gross Profit Margin
• Consumer Protection
• Settlement Agreement

KLL Group (Pty) Ltd v Starch, Glucose and Animal Feed Ingredients Business of Tongaat Hulett Ltd (LM173Mar20)

KLL Group (Pty) Ltd v Starch, Glucose and Animal Feed Ingredients Business of Tongaat Hulett Ltd (LM173Mar20) [2020] ZACT 10 (15 July 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM173Mar20

Judges

E Daniels, Y Carrim, H Cheadle

The Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved KLL Group’s acquisition of Tongaat Hulett’s starch, glucose and animal feed ingredients business.

• Merger Control
• Dominance
• Public Interest
• Countervailing Power
• Merger-control
• Competition-law

Competition Commission v West Coast Hardware (Pty) Ltd (CO044Jun20)

Competition Commission v West Coast Hardware (Pty) Ltd (CO044Jun20) [2020] ZACT 57 (6 July 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO044Jun20

Judges

E Daniels, A Ndoni, F Tregenna

The Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement resolving an excessive-pricing complaint against West Coast Hardware over FFP1 dust masks during the COVID-19 disaster.

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Dominance
• Gross Margin Analysis
• Excessive-pricing
• Covid-19-regulations

Competition Commission v Retrospective Trading 200 CC t/a Seaside Pharmacy (CO020May20)

Competition Commission v Retrospective Trading 200 CC t/a Seaside Pharmacy (CO020May20) [2020] ZACT 100 (14 May 2020)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CO020May20

Judges

Y Carrim, A Ndoni, A Roskam

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement over alleged excessive pricing of hand sanitizers and face masks during South Africa’s COVID-19 state of disaster.

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Dominance
• Consumer Protection
• Gross Profit Margin
• Compliance Programme