South Africa Case Law

Sundays River Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd and Another, In re: Bouwer v Lonetree Citrus CC and others (1626/2024; 1623/2024)

Sundays River Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd and Another, In re: Bouwer v Lonetree Citrus CC and others (1626/2024; 1623/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 56; [2025] 1 All SA 571 (ECP); 2025 (1) SA 529 (ECGq) (17 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1626/2024; 1623/2024

Judge

Govindjee

High Court held that court-ordered business rescue begins only when the order is granted; SRCC could intervene only where it remained an affected person.

• Business Rescue
• Affected Persons
• Creditor Definition
• Statutory Interpretation
• Intervention Rights
• Business-rescue

Astron Energy (Pty) Limited v Vitol Emerald Bidco (Pty) Ltd and Others (LM196Mar23/INT123Nov23; LM196Mar23CNF135Nov23)

Astron Energy (Pty) Limited v Vitol Emerald Bidco (Pty) Ltd and Others (LM196Mar23/INT123Nov23; LM196Mar23CNF135Nov23) [2024] ZACT 3 (15 January 2024)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM196Mar23/INT123Nov23

Judges

M Mazwai, AW Wessels, L Mncube

The Competition Tribunal granted Astron Energy leave to intervene in the Engen/Vitol merger proceedings, limited to specified foreclosure, employment, and merger-condition issues.

• Intervention Rights
• Customer Foreclosure
• Input Foreclosure
• Confidentiality In Merger Proceedings
• Employment Impact
• Merger Conditions

Optimum Coal Terminal (Pty) Limited and Another v Richards Bay Coal Teminal (Pty) Limited and Others (D531/2023)

Optimum Coal Terminal (Pty) Limited and Another v Richards Bay Coal Teminal (Pty) Limited and Others (D531/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 9 (1 March 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D531/2023

Judge

M R Chetty

The court found that NUM failed to establish a prima facie right to the urgent interim relief sought, as NUM is neither a shareholder nor a party to the contractual relationship with RBCT, and its members have no employment relationship with RBCT. The relief sought by NUM is identical to that sought by Optimum in the main application, and NUM's interests are adequately represented therein. The evidence did not support NUM's claims of irreparable harm or urgency, as alternative sources of income exist for NUM members and the time between the hearing of the interim application and the main appl…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Business Rescue
• Contractual Termination
• Urgent Application
• Fair Labour Practices
• Intervention Rights

Sunrise Energy Proprietary Limited v Strategic Fuel Fund Association NPC and Others (211/CAC/Oct22)

Sunrise Energy Proprietary Limited v Strategic Fuel Fund Association NPC and Others (211/CAC/Oct22) [2022] ZACAC 11; [2023] 1 CPLR 5 (CAC) (22 November 2022)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

211/CAC/Oct22

Judges

Nkosi, Vally, Potterill

The Competition Appeal Court upheld Sunrise Energy’s appeal, allowing broader participation in merger proceedings and access to confidential material through its economic advisors.

• Merger Control
• Intervention Rights
• Public Interest Analysis
• Access To Confidential Information
• Market Foreclosure
• Remedies In Merger Proceedings

Northam Platinum Holdings Limited v Impala Platinum Holdings Limited and Others and a related matter (LM156Dec21; INT045May22)

Northam Platinum Holdings Limited v Impala Platinum Holdings Limited and Others and a related matter (LM156Dec21; INT045May22) [2022] ZACT 63; [2022] 2 CPLR 41 (CT) (20 July 2022)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM156Dec21; INT045May22

Judges

Y Carrim, E Daniels, I Valodia

The Tribunal found that while Northam's horizontal theories of harm were speculative and unsupported by evidence, its unique position as a mid-level miner could provide valuable insights into the vertical effects of the merger, particularly regarding the impact on junior miners and smelting capacity. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant Northam limited intervention rights, restricting its participation to written and oral submissions on vertical effects and prejudice to junior miners, and subjecting access to confidential information to appropriate undertakings. The Tribunal rejecte…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Vertical Effects
• Horizontal Effects
• Public Interest
• Intervention Rights
• Market Definition

Africa Data Centres SA Development (Pty) Ltd v Digital Titan (Pty) Ltd and Others (200/CAC/May22)

Africa Data Centres SA Development (Pty) Ltd v Digital Titan (Pty) Ltd and Others (200/CAC/May22) [2022] ZACAC 6; [2022] 2 CPLR 21 (CAC) (8 July 2022)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

200/CAC/May22

Judges

Nkosi, Davies, Nuku

The Competition Appeal Court dismissed an appeal against a merger-intervention ruling, holding that speculative concerns about future market entry did not justify wider participation.

• Merger Control
• Intervention Rights
• Potential Competition
• Network Effects
• Input Foreclosure
• Merger-control

Africa Data Centres SA Development (Pty) Ltd v Digital Titan (Pty) Ltd and a related matter (LM165Jan22; INT016Apr22)

Africa Data Centres SA Development (Pty) Ltd v Digital Titan (Pty) Ltd and a related matter (LM165Jan22; INT016Apr22) [2022] ZACT 68; [2022] 1 CPLR 18 (CT) (23 May 2022)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM165Jan22; INT016Apr22

Judges

Y Carrim, A Wessels, S Goga

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant ADC limited intervention rights in the merger proceedings, finding that ADC, as a direct competitor, could provide valuable insights into competition dynamics and potential theories of harm specific to its business. However, the Tribunal found that ADC's broader concerns regarding barriers to entry and industry-wide effects were not substantiated and would not assist the Tribunal beyond the evidence already provided by the Commission and merging parties. The Tribunal was mindful to avoid duplication of the Commission's role and unnecessary delay,…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Intervention Rights
• Input Foreclosure
• Network Effects

South African Riding for the Disabled Association v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others (CCT172/16)

South African Riding for the Disabled Association v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others (CCT172/16) [2017] ZACC 4; 2017 (8) BCLR 1053 (CC); 2017 (5) SA 1 (CC) (23 February 2017)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT172/16

Judges

Nkabinde ACJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mbha AJ, Mhlantla J, Musi AJ, Zondo J

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant, as a lawful occupier of Erf 142 Constantia, had a statutory right to just and equitable compensation under section 35(9) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act when the property was ordered to be transferred to the Sadiens. The variation order was made without determination or agreement of compensation to the applicant, adversely affecting its rights. The applicant's interest was not in the restoration of the land itself but in the compensation due for improvements made and occupation. The Land Claims Court erred in dismissing the application t…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Intervention Rights
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Direct And Substantial Interest

South African Local Government Association and Another v Competition Commission and Others (017194 - 017269, 017319-017376, 017384)

South African Local Government Association and Another v Competition Commission and Others (017194 - 017269, 017319-017376, 017384) [2013] ZACT 92; [2013] 2 CPLR 585 (CT) (19 September 2013)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

017194 - 017269, 017319-017376, 017384

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Takalani Madima

Tribunal dismissed intervention applications in consent order proceedings, holding the applicants lacked a distinct material interest not already represented by the Competition Commission.

• Consent Orders
• Intervention Rights
• Administrative Penalties
• Locus Standi
• Public Interest
• Collusive Tendering

Londoloza Forestry Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Bonheur 50 General Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (80/AM/0CT04)

Londoloza Forestry Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Bonheur 50 General Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (80/AM/0CT04) [2011] ZACT 53; [2011] 2 CPLR 366 (CT) (25 July 2011)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

80/AM/0CT04

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Mbuyiseli Madlanga

The Competition Tribunal dismissed Londoloza’s costs application, holding that the merging parties were entitled to seek conditional approval and had already tendered related costs.

• Costs Award
• Merger Control
• Competition Act Section 57
• Intervention Rights
• Withdrawal Of Application
• Competition-law