South Africa Case Law

Coca Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (247/CAC/Jul23)

Coca Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (247/CAC/Jul23) [2024] ZACAC 4 (7 October 2024)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

247/CAC/Jul23

Judges

Manoim JP, Nuku JA, Poyo Dlwati AJA

The Competition Appeal Court refused to transfer a review from the Competition Tribunal, holding there was no statutory or constitutional power to do so.

• Jurisdiction Of Competition Tribunal
• Transfer Of Proceedings
• Statutory Review
• Section 173 Inherent Powers
• Excessive Pricing
• Non Referral Decisions

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

Industrial Gas Users Association of Southern Africa v Sasol Gas (Proprietary) Limited and Others (IR095AUG22)

Industrial Gas Users Association of Southern Africa v Sasol Gas (Proprietary) Limited and Others (IR095AUG22) [2023] ZACT 55 (12 May 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IR095AUG22

Judges

M Mazwai, G Budlender SC, A Roskam

The Tribunal granted interim relief restraining Sasol Gas from raising prices above R68.39/GJ without notice, and dismissed Sasol Gas’s challenge to the Commission’s summons.

• Excessive Pricing
• Interim Relief
• Concurrent Jurisdiction
• Gas Market Regulation
• Prima Facie Right
• Balance Of Convenience

Sasol Gas (Proprietary) v Limited Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (OTH110Sep22; IR095AUG22)

Sasol Gas (Proprietary) v Limited Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (OTH110Sep22; IR095AUG22) [2023] ZACT 65 (12 May 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IR095AUG22; OTH110SEP22

Judges

M Mazwai, G Budlender SC, A Roskam

The Tribunal granted IGUA-SA interim relief against Sasol Gas’s proposed gas price increase, upheld the Competition Commission’s concurrent jurisdiction, and dismissed Sasol Gas’s summons challenge.

• Excessive Pricing
• Concurrent Jurisdiction
• Interim Interdict
• Gas Regulation
• Prima Facie Right
• Balance Of Convenience

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 Ampath (COVCO140Dec21)

Competition Commission v Ampath (COVCO140Dec21) [2021] ZACT 108 (12 December 2021)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

COVCO140Dec21

The Competition Tribunal confirmed consent agreements capping Ampath and Lancet’s COVID-19 PCR test prices at R500 inclusive of VAT for two years.

• Excessive Pricing
• Covid 19 Pcr Tests
• Consent Order
• Price Cap
• Section 8 1 A
• Consumer Protection Regulations

Competition Commission v Lancet Laboratories (COVCO141Dec21)

Competition Commission v Lancet Laboratories (COVCO141Dec21) [2021] ZACT 107 (12 December 2021)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

COVCO141Dec21

The Competition Tribunal confirmed consent agreements capping Ampath and Lancet COVID-19 PCR test prices at R500 inclusive of VAT for two years.

• Excessive Pricing
• Consent Order
• Covid 19 Regulation
• Price Cap
• Section 8 1 A
• 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

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