South Africa Case Law

Competition Commission of South Africa v Pickfords Removals SA (Pty) Ltd (167/CAC/Jul18)

Competition Commission of South Africa v Pickfords Removals SA (Pty) Ltd (167/CAC/Jul18) [2019] ZACAC 5; [2020] 1 CPLR 55 (CAC) (3 April 2019)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

167/CAC/Jul18

Judges

WHG van der Linde, NP Boqwana, F Kathree-Setiloane

The court held that section 67(1) of the Competition Act creates a limitation period that runs from the cessation of the prohibited practice, not from the date the Commissioner acquires knowledge of the practice. The provision is substantive, not procedural, and does not allow for condonation unless expressly provided for, which is not the case here. The second complaint initiation was considered an amendment of the first, but for the respondent, the relevant initiation date was when it was first named. Consequently, any alleged contraventions that ceased more than three years before the seco…

Source excerpt

• Limitation Periods
• Complaint Initiation
• Collusive Tendering
• Amendment Of Initiation
• Condonation
• Restrictive Horizontal Practices

Hattingh and Another v South African Airways (JS338/06)

Hattingh and Another v South African Airways (JS338/06) [2010] ZALC 203; (2010) 31 ILJ 2407 (LC) (21 May 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JS338/06

Judge

Francis

The Labour Court dismissed pilots’ claims that South African Airways' former age limit for recruitment was unfair discrimination, finding the dispute time-barred and academic.

• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Equity Act
• Jurisdiction
• Seniority Adjustment
• Limitation Periods
• Age-discrimination

Society of Lloyds and Another v Price, Society of Lloyd's v Lee (17040/03 , 20764/03)

Society of Lloyds and Another v Price, Society of Lloyd's v Lee (17040/03 , 20764/03) [2005] ZAGPHC 9; 2005 (3) SA 549 (T); [2005] 2 All SA 302 (T) (14 January 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

17040/03 , 20764/03

Judge

Mynhardt

The court held that prescription under South African law is substantive, and the Prescription Act 1969 applies a three-year period to foreign judgments. English limitation law is procedural and does not override South African law in this context. The Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 does not affect the classification of English limitation provisions for South African purposes. The contractual undertakings by Price and Lee did not amount to a waiver of their rights to rely on South African prescription. Foreign judgments are not 'judgment debts' under section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription A…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments
• Prescription Act
• Conflict Of Laws
• Limitation Periods
• Public Policy
• International Jurisdiction

Commissioner for Custome & Excise v Standard General Insurance Company Ltd. (507/98)

Commissioner for Custome & Excise v Standard General Insurance Company Ltd. (507/98) [2000] ZASCA 55; 2001 (1) SA 978 (SCA) (29 September 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

507/98

Judges

F H Grosskopf, Howie, Plewman, Farlam, Mpati

The court held that section 99(5) of the Customs and Excise Act creates an expiry period, not prescription, so the surety’s liability ended after two years.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Suretyship Liability
• Limitation Periods
• Prescription Act
• Accessory Obligation
• Customs-and-excise-act