South Africa Case Law

Dumpit Waste Removal (Pty) Ltd and City of Johannesburg / Pikitup Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (21/IR/Apr02)

Dumpit Waste Removal (Pty) Ltd and City of Johannesburg / Pikitup Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd (21/IR/Apr02) [2004] ZACT 1; [2004] 1 CPLR 189 (CT) (5 January 2004)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

21/IR/Apr02

Judges

D. Lewis, N. Manoim, M.R Madlanga

The Tribunal found that the provision of waste removal services in Johannesburg is reserved to the municipality by the Constitution and implemented through the Municipal Systems Act. The City of Johannesburg lawfully established Pikitup as a municipal entity and granted it exclusive rights to certain waste services via a Service Delivery Agreement. The exclusivity is a result of statutory and administrative decision, not market power. Therefore, Pikitup's monopoly over 'council services' does not constitute abuse of dominance under the Competition Act. Since interim relief requires the existe…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Exclusionary Acts
• Municipal Services
• Jurisdiction Of Competition Act
• Service Delivery Agreement

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

Sappi Fine Papers and Competition Commission (62/CR/Nov01)

Sappi Fine Papers and Competition Commission (62/CR/Nov01) [2002] ZACT 26 (17 April 2002)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

62/CR/Nov01

Judges

D.H. Lewis, S. Zilwa, N.M. Manoim

The Tribunal held that the Commission's complaint referral was not time-barred, as multiple extensions of the investigation period are permissible under section 50 of the Competition Act, provided each extension is validly obtained before the expiry of the previous period. The Tribunal found no statutory restriction on the number of extensions and distinguished the wording of section 50 from section 14, which expressly limits merger investigation extensions to a single period. On the second exception, the Tribunal determined that the complaint referral failed to disclose a cause of action und…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Tying Arrangements
• Exclusionary Acts
• Complaint Referral Procedure
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal