South Africa Case Law

Whip Fire Projects (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Another (13204/17)

Whip Fire Projects (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Another (13204/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 28; 2020 (6) SA 228 (WCC) (28 February 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13204/17

Judge

Ndita

The court held that the Competition Commission was entitled to apply for and obtain a search and seizure warrant on an ex parte basis, given the risk of evidence destruction and the investigative nature of the proceedings. The Commission was not required to file a formal initiation document (CC1) for the warrant application; sufficient particularity in the founding affidavit sufficed. The allegations and evidence presented by the Commission, including the applicant’s membership in ASIB and the restrictive rules enforced by ASIB, established reasonable grounds for suspicion of anti-competitive…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Horizontal Restrictive Practices
• Market Division
• Initiation Of Complaint
• Chain Of Custody
• Interim Interdict

National Credit Regulator v Capitec Bank Ltd and Another (A440/2014)

National Credit Regulator v Capitec Bank Ltd and Another (A440/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 125 (23 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A440/2014

Judges

FHD van Oosten, DS Molefe, MM Jansen

The court held that the National Credit Regulator did not validly initiate a complaint against Capitec Bank as required by section 136(2) of the National Credit Act. The NCR failed to demonstrate any reasonable suspicion or factual basis for its initiation, instead embarking on a broad fishing expedition. The investigation and referral to the Tribunal were not based on a valid complaint and were therefore unlawful. The Tribunal correctly declined to consider the merits due to lack of jurisdiction arising from the invalid referral. The NCR's conduct was found to be procedurally unfair and cont…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Initiation Of Complaint
• Jurisdictional Requirements
• Administrative Fairness
• Public Power Exercise

National Credit Regulator v Moneyline Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (NCT/17884/2014/57(1))

National Credit Regulator v Moneyline Financial Services (Pty) Ltd (NCT/17884/2014/57(1)) [2016] ZANCT 14 (11 March 2016)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/17884/2014/57(1)

Judges

H Devraj, T Woker, J Maseko

The Tribunal found that the investigation by the Applicant was initiated on reasonable grounds, specifically information contained in a Sowetan newspaper article, and that the Applicant's internal memorandum provided sufficient evidence of initiation. The Tribunal held that the National Credit Act does not prescribe formal requirements for the initiation of a complaint by the Regulator, and that the application for de-registration under section 57 was not defective for failing to use Form 32, which applies to referrals of prohibited conduct. The Tribunal dismissed the points in limine raised…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Administrative Action
• Initiation Of Complaint
• Investigation Procedure
• Referral Requirements

Mondi Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Another (47050/13)

Mondi Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Another (47050/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 910 (12 November 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

47050/13

Judge

Legodi

High Court review-related interlocutory ruling on disclosure of Competition Commission records in a complaint initiation challenge.

• Rule 53 Review
• Confidential Information
• Initiation Of Complaint
• Administrative Action
• Principle Of Legality
• Restricted Information

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others (103/CR/Sep08)

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others (103/CR/Sep08) [2010] ZACT 39; [2010] 1 CPLR 174 (CT) (8 June 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

103/CR/Sep08

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Takalani Madima

The Tribunal held that the Competition Commission is not required to specify all respondents at the time of initiating a complaint under section 49B(1). The Act requires only that the Commission initiate a complaint against an alleged prohibited practice, with a rational link to the relevant prohibition. The Commission's initiation documents and subsequent investigation satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for referral against Feltex, Steinhoff, and Kap. The Tribunal adopted a purposive approach, emphasizing the public interest in prosecuting anti-competitive conduct and avoiding a mecha…

Source excerpt

• Initiation Of Complaint
• Joinder Of Parties
• Amendment Of Referral
• Section 4 Horizontal Practices
• Section 49b Initiation
• Section 67 Limitation