Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mlonzi and Another v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited and Another (IR1360CT22) [2023] ZACT 61; [2024] 1 CPLR 2 (CT) (2 August 2023)
The Tribunal dismissed an interim relief application against Eskom’s supplier de-registration of Econ Oil, finding no prima facie abuse of dominance or balance of convenience.
Apollo Studios (Pty) Ltd and Another v Audatex SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR198Mar23) [2023] ZACT 23 (8 May 2023)
The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case of a prohibited practice under section 8(1)(d)(ii) or section 8(1)(c) of the Competition Act. While Audatex is prima facie dominant in the relevant estimation market, the evidence did not show that the service provided was 'scarce' or that Apollo's removal from the platform would exclude it from the parts procurement market. Alternative solutions for insurer customers were available, and there was insufficient evidence of anti-competitive effects or irreparable harm. Audatex's concern regarding protection of confide…
Source excerpt
Emedia Investments Proprietary Limited South Africa v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and Another (201/CAC/JUN22) [2022] ZACAC 9; [2022] 2 CPLR 23 (CAC) (1 August 2022)
The majority of the Competition Appeal Court found that eMedia had made out a prima facie case for interim relief. MultiChoice's refusal to broadcast eMedia's channels on the DStv platform, given its overwhelming dominance and lack of realistic alternatives for channel providers, amounted to exclusionary conduct and a refusal to supply a scarce service. The DStv platform is a scarce distribution facility, and eMedia's inability to access it would cause irreparable harm, limiting its ability to compete and grow. The balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief, as MultiChoice would…
Source excerpt
Makarenge Electrical Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Wilec v Albro (Pty) Ltd and Another (IR095Oct21) [2022] ZACT 18; [2022] 1 CPLR 17 (CT) (29 April 2022)
The Tribunal found that Allbro, as a dominant firm in the transformer bushings market, engaged in exclusionary conduct by threatening customers with litigation based on untested intellectual property claims, thereby inducing them not to deal with Wilec and Ukusa. This conduct resulted in substantial foreclosure, preventing Wilec from accessing key customers such as Actom and Revive, and indirectly Eskom, the largest purchaser. The Tribunal held that the Competition Act applies to intellectual property rights unless an exemption is granted, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to regulate co…
Source excerpt
British American Tobacco Holdings South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Twisp (Pty) Ltd (LM262Jan18) [2020] ZACT 9 (13 February 2020)
The Tribunal conditionally approved BAT Holdings SA’s acquisition of Twisp, imposing five-year behavioural rules and a two-year retrenchment moratorium.
Siyakhuphuka Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Transnet Soc and Another (158/CAC/Nov17) [2018] ZACAC 4; [2018] 1 CPLR 88 (CAC) (3 July 2018)
The court held that the Competition Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding abuse of dominance and exclusionary conduct by Transnet and its divisions under the Competition Act, even where the conduct is also subject to oversight by another regulatory authority such as the Ports Regulator. The reasoning in Competition Commission of SA v Telkom SA Ltd & another was applied, confirming that the Competition Act establishes concurrent jurisdiction for competition authorities in all competition matters. The appellant's complaints were found to be properly characterised as competition…
Source excerpt
Grant v Schoemansville Oewer Klub (IR202DEC15) [2016] ZACT 51; [2017] 1 CPLR 190 (CT) (11 July 2016)
The Tribunal dismissed an interim relief application as moot after the club restored access for the applicant’s boat business, and ordered costs against the club.
Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd v Komatiland Forests (Pty) Ltd (018507) [2014] ZACT 31; [2014] 1 CPLR 328 (CT) (4 June 2014)
The Tribunal dismissed an interim relief application alleging excessive pricing, exclusionary conduct, price discrimination, and contractual variation.
Sasol Chemical Industries Ltd v Omnia (Pty) Ltd; In Re: Omnia (Pty) Ltd v Sasol Chemical Industries Ltd (38/CR/Apr2 (016907), 016907) [2013] ZACT 115; [2013] 2 CPLR 578 (CT) (18 December 2013)
The Competition Tribunal refused Sasol’s bid to separate a legal issue about ammonia pricing under a long-term contract, finding disputed facts and overlapping evidence made separation inconvenient.
Competition Commission v Media 24 (pty) Ltd (92/CR/Oct11) [2013] ZACT 19; [2013] 1 CPLR 291 (CT) (28 March 2013)
The Tribunal allowed the Commission’s amendment, but ordered further particulars on Vista’s alleged targeting conduct and rejected objections on cause of action and contradiction.
Explore more
