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
2 court collections
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Competition Law [2022] ZACT 41

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited v Competition Commission Of South Africa and Another (RVW11Oct21)

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited v Competition Commission Of South Africa and Another (RVW11Oct21) [2022] ZACT 41; [2023] 1 CPLR 14 (CT) (22 September 2022)

The Tribunal found that the Commission's decision was vague and ambiguous, failing to provide guidance on what constitutes sufficient cumulative facts to trigger a merger investigation under a separate filing. The Commission ignored highly relevant facts, such as the absence of an offer, price, and terms, which it itself identified as essential for the threshold enquiry. The Commission conflated the threshold and just-and-reasonable enquiries and relied on irrelevant factors, such as customer flight, which pertain to the merits of a merger investigation rather than the procedural question of…

  • Separate Merger Notification
  • Hostile Takeover
  • Threshold Enquiry
  • Administrative Review
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Irrationality
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2018] ZACAC 7

Murray & Roberts Holdings Limited v Aton GMBH and Another (166/CAC/Jul18)

Murray & Roberts Holdings Limited v Aton GMBH and Another (166/CAC/Jul18) [2018] ZACAC 7; [2018] 2 CPLR 519 (CAC) (28 October 2018)

Section 13A(3) of the Competition Act prohibits the implementation of a merger, meaning the exercise of control as defined in section 12, prior to approval by the competition authorities. The mere acquisition and voting of shares by a shareholder who has announced a firm intention to acquire control does not amount to implementation unless such voting confers control as defined by the Act. The Goldfields precedent is limited to situations where de facto control is acquired and exercised, not to the voting of shares absent control. In this case, Aton did not possess sufficient voting power to…

  • Merger Control
  • Implementation Prohibition
  • De Facto Control
  • Voting Rights
  • Hostile Takeover
  • Competition Act Interpretation
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.