Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Afrihost (Pty) Ltd (019075) [2015] ZACT 10; [2016] 1 CPLR 184 (CT) (12 January 2015)
The Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved MTN’s acquisition of Afrihost, finding no substantial lessening of competition or public interest concerns.
Competition Commission v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (016865) [2013] ZACT 62 (18 July 2013)
The Tribunal confirmed a settlement between the Competition Commission and Telkom, imposed a R200 million penalty, and ordered pricing and compliance reforms.
Competition Commission v Senwes Ltd (110/CR/Dec06) [2013] ZACT 34 (15 May 2013)
The Tribunal confirmed a settlement requiring Senwes to restructure its grain business, ensure non-discriminatory storage access, and report compliance annually.
Steinhoff International Holdings Ltd v JD Group Ltd (100/LM/Nov11) [2012] ZACT 72 (15 August 2012)
The Tribunal unconditionally approved Steinhoff’s acquisition of JD Group, finding no substantial competition concerns, foreclosure risk, or public interest issues.
Competition Commission v Telkom SA Ltd (11/CR/Febr04) [2011] ZACT 39; [2011] 1 CPLR 196 (CT) (23 June 2011)
The Tribunal dismissed the Commission’s attempted amendments on section 8(c) and excessive pricing, but allowed clarification of VANS-related pleadings and the complaint period.
Senwes Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (118/2010) [2011] ZASCA 99; [2011] 1 CPLR 1 (SCA) (1 June 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court erred in finding Senwes guilty of margin squeeze under s 8(c) of the Competition Act when such conduct was not covered by the referral. The referral focused on differential tariffs between farmers and traders, not on discrimination between Senwes' trading arm and other traders. The Tribunal, as a statutory body, is limited to adjudicating matters referred to it and may not expand its inquiry beyond the referral, except by amendment or agreement. Evidence and findings relating to margin squeeze were…
Source excerpt
Telkom SA Ltd v Competition Commission South Africa (55/CR/Jul09, 73/CR/Oct09, 78/CR/Nov09) [2011] ZACT 4 (4 February 2011)
The Tribunal found that IS's late filing of an amended second referral should be condoned, as Telkom failed to demonstrate any prejudice and both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the first referral and amendment of the second. Telkom's exceptions to the Commission's and IS's referrals were dismissed as misconceived or lacking substance. The Tribunal held that cumulative reliance on the same facts for different contraventions is permissible and should be determined after evidence is led. The Commission's pleadings were found to sufficiently allege economic value for excessive pricing, and m…
Source excerpt
Competition Commission v Telkom SA Ltd (11/CR/Febr04) [2011] ZACT 2; [2011] 1 CPLR 191 (CT) (17 January 2011)
The Tribunal dismissed the Commission’s amendment application because the proposed margin squeeze pleading lacked enough detail to let Telkom answer it.
Gogga Tracking Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Vodacom Service Provider (Pty) Ltd (09/IR/Mar10) [2010] ZACT 38; [2010] 1 CPLR 115 (CT) (7 June 2010)
The Tribunal held that the shareholders' agreement between Gogga Tracking Solutions (Pty) Ltd's shareholders required unanimous consent for the institution of legal proceedings, including the present interim relief application. The applicant failed to obtain such consent, as Vodacom Ventures (Pty) Ltd, a significant shareholder, expressly withheld its approval and opposed the application. The director's resolution relied upon by the applicant was insufficient and did not override the shareholders' agreement. The Tribunal found no evidence or averment that the relevant clause of the shareholde…
Source excerpt
Senwes Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa (87/CAC/FEB/09) [2010] ZACAC 3 (3 February 2010)
Leave to appeal was refused because the pleadings and evidence sufficiently disclosed a margin squeeze case and no special leave grounds were shown.
Explore more
