South Africa Case Law

Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (IM196Mar22)

Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (IM196Mar22) [2023] ZACT 13 (22 February 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IM196Mar22

Judges

AW Wessels, M Mazwai, L Mncube

The Tribunal prohibited Corruseal Group’s proposed intermediate merger with Neopak Holdings after finding it would lessen competition in corrugated packaging.

• Merger Control
• Intermediate Merger
• Public Interest
• Prohibition Of Merger
• Merger-control
• Intermediate-merger

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd v Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (IM196Mar22; INT086Aug22)

APL Cartons (Pty) Ltd v Corruseal Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (IM196Mar22; INT086Aug22) [2022] ZACT 40; [2023] 1 CPLR 11 (27 September 2022)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

IM196Mar22; INT086Aug22

Judges

A Wessels, M Mazwai, L Mncube

The Competition Tribunal allowed APL Cartons to intervene in a merger case involving Corruseal and Neopak, limiting participation to specified competition issues and confidentiality rules.

• Intermediate Merger
• Scope Of Intervention
• Foreclosure Theory
• Access To Confidential Information
• Market Dynamics
• Procedural Rights

Rebel Packaging (Pty) Ltd v West Coast Paper Traders (Pty) Ltd (LM072May18)

Rebel Packaging (Pty) Ltd v West Coast Paper Traders (Pty) Ltd (LM072May18) [2019] ZACT 1 (23 January 2019)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM072May18

Judges

A Roskam, A Ndoni, M Mokuena

The Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved Rebel Packaging’s acquisition of increased control over West Coast Paper Traders, finding no substantial competition or public interest concerns.

• Intermediate Merger
• Vertical Integration
• Input Foreclosure
• Customer Foreclosure
• Market Share Analysis
• Public Interest

Amec Foster Wheeler SA (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission (VAR252MAR16)

Amec Foster Wheeler SA (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission (VAR252MAR16) [2016] ZACT 59; [2016] 2 CPLR 897 (CT) (13 July 2016)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

VAR252Mar16

Judges

Norman Manoim, Andreas Wessels, Mondo Mazwai

The Competition Tribunal allowed a merger-condition variation, directing the Commission to issue amended retrenchment conditions after changed market conditions.

• Merger Conditions
• Variation Of Conditions
• Intermediate Merger
• Jurisdiction Of Competition Authorities
• Merger-conditions
• Variation-of-conditions

Competition Commission v WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (69/AM/Oct10)

Competition Commission v WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (69/AM/Oct10) [2010] ZACT 77 (10 November 2010)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

69/AM/Oct10

Judges

N Manoim, A Wessels, Y Carrim

The Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement for a notifiable merger implemented before notification, imposing penalties on WBHO and Edwin.

• Merger Notification
• Prior Implementation
• Administrative Penalty
• Intermediate Merger
• Change Of Control
• Competition-law

Yara International ASA and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (133/AM/Dec07)

Yara International ASA and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (133/AM/Dec07) [2008] ZACT 26; [2008] 1 CPLR 196 (CT) (30 April 2008)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

133/AM/Dec07

Judges

D Lewis, Y Carrim, N Manoim

The Competition Tribunal approved the Yara-GrowHow merger subject to revised conditions designed to preserve urea supply to qualifying small purchasers.

• Merger Control
• Intermediate Merger
• Supply Conditions
• Market Definition
• Barriers To Entry
• Merger-control

Ngcaweni v Kwazulu Transport (Pty) Ltd and Another

Ngcaweni v Kwazulu Transport (Pty) Ltd and Another [2002] ZACT 9 (13 February 2002)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

64/AM/Nov01

Judges

NM Manoim, U Bhoola, DH Lewis

The Tribunal dismissed an employee-led challenge to an intermediate merger, holding the applicants lacked locus standi because notice was required only to the trade unions.

• Locus Standi
• Intermediate Merger
• Employee Participation
• Collective Bargaining
• Constitutional Rights
• Competition-law

Glaxo Wellcome Plc and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa

Glaxo Wellcome Plc and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa [2000] ZACT 33 (28 July 2000)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

58/AM/May00

Judges

N.M. Manoim, D.H. Lewis, U. Bhoola

The Tribunal found that the merger would result in high combined market shares in three therapeutic categories: anti-virals (excluding anti-HIV), topical anti-biotics, and anti-emetics. To address competition concerns, the merging parties voluntarily undertook to out license specific products in each category, ensuring that the merged entity would inherit only one party's market share in those markets. The Tribunal accepted these undertakings as sufficient to mitigate anti-competitive effects. Public interest concerns raised by the Treatment Action Campaign regarding HIV/AIDS medicines were i…

Source excerpt

• Intermediate Merger
• Market Share Analysis
• Out Licensing Conditions
• Public Interest Considerations
• Product Market Definition

Bubble Pac (Pty) Ltd and Competition Commission; Sealed Air Africa (Pty) Ltd and The Competition Commission of South Africa

Bubble Pac (Pty) Ltd and Competition Commission; Sealed Air Africa (Pty) Ltd and The Competition Commission of South Africa [2000] ZACT 30 (11 July 2000)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

63/AM/May00; 64/AM/May00

Judges

D.H. Lewis, N.M. Manoim, D.R. Terblanche

The Tribunal held that late extension certificates were invalid, so the Commission’s prohibition of the intermediate merger was a nullity and the merger was deemed approved.

• Intermediate Merger
• Extension Certificate
• Ultra Vires
• Deemed Approval
• Intermediate-merger
• Extension-certificate

Nasnuus v Competition Commission; CT Media Publications (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission

Nasnuus v Competition Commission; CT Media Publications (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission [2000] ZACT 22 (26 May 2000)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

27/AM/Mar00; 34/AM/Mar00

Judges

N.M. Manoim, U. Bhoola, C. Qunta

The Tribunal held that the Commission's extension of the consideration period to a specific date, rather than a number of days, rendered the saving provisions of the Interpretation Act and Commission Rules inapplicable. The statutory language and purpose of section 14(2) of the Competition Act require strict adherence to the time periods prescribed. Since the Commission failed to issue its prohibition certificate by the specified date, the mergers are deemed to have been approved by operation of law. The Tribunal found that neither the Interpretation Act nor the Commission Rules could be invo…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Intermediate Merger
• Time Computation
• Clearance Certificate