Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Competition Law [2019] ZACAC 4

Computicket (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (170/CAC/Feb19)

Computicket (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (170/CAC/Feb19) [2019] ZACAC 4 (23 October 2019)

Court
Competition Appeal Court
Case number
170/CAC/Feb19
Judges
Boqwana, Davis, Unterhalter

The Court found that Computicket, as a dominant firm with over 95% market share in outsourced ticket distribution services, imposed and strictly enforced exclusivity clauses in its contracts with inventory providers from 2005 to 2010. These clauses required inventory providers not to deal with competing ticketing agents, foreclosing the market to rivals and impeding competition. The Court held that the exclusivity provisions constituted an exclusionary act under section 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act. The Commission established anti-competitive effects, including foreclosure, reduced innovati…

Source excerpt

  • Abuse Of Dominance
  • Exclusive Dealing
  • Foreclosure
  • Efficiency Defence
  • Administrative Penalty
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2009] ZACT 66

Masscash Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Finro Enterprises (Pty) Ltd t/a Finro Cash and Carry (04/LM/Jan09)

Masscash Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Finro Enterprises (Pty) Ltd t/a Finro Cash and Carry (04/LM/Jan09) [2009] ZACT 66 (30 November 2009)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
04/LM/Jan09
Judges
N Manoim, M Mokuena, A Wessels

The Competition Tribunal approved Masscash’s acquisition of Finro, finding no substantial lessening of competition and no adverse public interest effects.

  • Merger Review
  • Unilateral Effects
  • Market Definition
  • Public Interest
  • Barriers To Entry
  • Efficiency Defence
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2005] ZACT 82

Tiger Brands Ltd / Ashton Canning Company (Pty) Ltd / Newco and Langeberg Foods International Ashton Canning Company (Pty) Ltd (46/LM/May05)

Tiger Brands Ltd / Ashton Canning Company (Pty) Ltd / Newco and Langeberg Foods International Ashton Canning Company (Pty) Ltd (46/LM/May05) [2005] ZACT 82; [2006] 1 CPLR 370 (CT) (23 November 2005)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
46/LM/May05
Judges
N Manoim, Y Carrim, M Holden

The Tribunal approved a merger in the canned fruit and puree markets, finding competition concerns in canned fruit but accepting merger-specific efficiencies, with employment conditions imposed.

  • Horizontal Merger
  • Market Definition
  • Efficiency Defence
  • Public Interest
  • Employment Effects
  • Buyer Power
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2005] ZACT 29

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Gold Fields Limited (93/LM/Nov04)

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Gold Fields Limited (93/LM/Nov04) [2005] ZACT 29; [2005] 2 CPLR 484 (CT) (18 May 2005)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
93/LM/Nov04
Judges
D. Lewis, N. Manoim, Y. Carrim

The Tribunal approved Harmony’s takeover of Gold Fields subject to employment conditions and monitoring, finding no substantial competition harm and rejecting buyer-power and systemic-risk objections.

  • Large Merger Review
  • Public Interest Assessment
  • Employment Effects
  • Buyer Power
  • Market Definition
  • Efficiency Defence
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2005] ZASCA 42

American Natural Soda Ash Corporation and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (554/2003)

American Natural Soda Ash Corporation and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (554/2003) [2005] ZASCA 42; [2005] 1 CPLR 1 (SCA); [2005] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 158 (SCA); 2005 (9) BCLR 862 (SCA) (13 May 2005)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
554/03
Judges
MPATI, CAMERON, NUGENT, CONRADIE, COMRIE

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that its jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Competition Appeal Court is derived from the Constitution and cannot be ousted by the Competition Act. Special leave to appeal is required for such matters, and the test for granting leave includes both reasonable prospects of success and special circumstances. The Act applies to all economic activity having any effect within South Africa, not only adverse effects, and the Tribunal and Commission have jurisdiction accordingly. The Act's complaint procedure allows any person to submit a complaint, and particular da…

Source excerpt

  • Exclusive Jurisdiction
  • Standing Of Complainant
  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Restrictive Horizontal Practices
  • Price Fixing
  • Efficiency Defence
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2003] ZACAC 5

SAPPI Fine Paper (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (23/CAC/Sep02)

SAPPI Fine Paper (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (23/CAC/Sep02) [2003] ZACAC 5; [2003] 2 CPLR 272 (CAC) (25 September 2003)

Court
Competition Appeal Court
Case number
23/CAC/Sep02
Judges
Selikowitz, Hussain, Malan

The court upheld a finding that Patensie’s exclusivity provisions for citrus packing and marketing were abusive under section 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act.

  • Abuse Of Dominance
  • Exclusionary Acts
  • Market Definition
  • Efficiency Defence
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Competition-law
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2003] ZACT 15

Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Group Ltd (08/LM/Feb02)

Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Group Ltd (08/LM/Feb02) [2003] ZACT 15 (19 March 2003)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
08/LM/Feb02
Judges
D Lewis, M Holden, N Manoim

The Tribunal found the merger substantially lessened competition in the proprietary spirits market, but not in value or premium spirits, wine, or FABs.

  • Merger Control
  • Market Definition
  • Substantial Lessening Of Competition
  • Public Interest
  • Efficiency Defence
  • Merger-control
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2001] ZACT 10

Ansac and Another v Botash and Others (1)

Ansac and Another v Botash and Others (1) [2001] ZACT 10 (27 March 2001)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
49/CR/Apr00
Judges
N. Manoim, D. Terblanche, D. Lewis

The Competition Tribunal dismissed Ansac’s jurisdictional and particularity objections, allowed amendments, and held section 4(1)(b) does not permit an efficiency defence.

  • Complaint Referral Procedure
  • Jurisdictional Preconditions
  • Retrospectivity
  • Particularity Of Pleadings
  • Efficiency Defence
  • Section 4 1 B Interpretation
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2001] ZACT 2

Trident Steel (Proprietary) Limited and Dorbyl Limited (89/LM/Oct00)

Trident Steel (Proprietary) Limited and Dorbyl Limited (89/LM/Oct00) [2001] ZACT 2 (30 January 2001)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
89/LM/Oct00
Judges
N.M. Manoim, S. Zilwa, P.E Maponya

The Competition Tribunal approved Trident Steel’s acquisition of three Baldwins Steel plants from Dorbyl, finding competition concerns in ISF steel offset by merger efficiencies.

  • Merger Control
  • Efficiency Defence
  • Market Definition
  • Substantial Lessening Of Competition
  • Countervailing Power
  • Merger-control
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.